Castles STILL 650 stone?!

[Bowy]

So, most of us knew roughly twenty years ago houses and quick walling we’re abusive mechanics spiraling game time out of control. They finally fixed houses and people seem to love it. Go figure.

How’s the time to address the most ancient of aberrations, the fount of toxicity and abuse, the forward castle, the castle push, the building whore. Intuitively it’s easy to understand castles are too cheap by at least 60-70%. Their cost must relate to their value, and their value is tied to resource investment to destroy. The cost to destroy a castle in castle age is easily double the villager second cost of 650 stone, probably tripled. It has too much damage, it’s too cheap, has too much utility, and too many hit points.

Devs: instead of reselling us a civilization we’ve already purchased and adding more that no one needed or wanted, instead of bloating the game further with barely individuated civilizations, maybe fix the core experience?

And also, ranked nomad is garbage seed. Good lord nomad my boy what did they do to you.

 

[Bergui]

If it is much more expensive, when you are surprised by a castle (ok, 1/2 minute later maybe) while booming on arena, you will have absolutely no way to buy one to protect yourself. The strategy might be even stronger because reacting to it will be way harder.

 

[hereicome]

Devs: instead of reselling us a civilization we’ve already purchased and adding more that no one needed or wanted, instead of bloating the game further with barely individuated civilizations, maybe fix the core

Not sure about your other points, but FYI I needed and wanted new civs. And a lot of other people too.

 

[MuscleChamp]

they are not reselling indians

 

[Influenza]

you are actually right about castles being OP on nomad. That's the only map they are OP on though

 

[Spring_]

Castles should cost stone,wood,gold
Walls should cost YOUR SOUL YOU YELLOW BELLIED TURTLE

 

[enmipho]

Castles: 650 stone
Imagining the ranked nomad game that prompted this post: Priceless

 

[LowEloNobody]

Did someone hurt you on Nomad?

 

[Paint]

As someone that just lost to a Sicilian caste that was built under 3 of my towers (very fun speed bonus btw) I can understand this rage.

But the true problem is walls, all walls should be removed from dark age and stone walls should only be a thing in castle age. Also half the HP and give them 0/0 armor until town watch is researched.

 

[Spring_]

As someone that just lost to a Sicilian caste that was built under 3 of my towers (very fun speed bonus btw) I can understand this rage.

But the true problem is walls, all walls should be removed from dark age and stone walls should only be a thing in castle age. Also half the HP and give them 0/0 armor until town watch is researched.

 

[vince]

imo quickwalls should be nerfed, -20 melee armor and -10 pierce armor or something like that for building foundations (maybe extreme, I just gave random numbers)

it may be a fun aspect of the game to see and do but is so cheesy. sorry but one vil putting up a building foundation shouldn't be able to basically negate a swarm of 15 knights. either units should be able to break the foundation more quickly, or if the building still goes up, it will be horribly damaged and near destruction. some kind of more severe penalty.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Forward castling is boring I agree but a lot of people love it because it feels like a big alpha move. You are also correct about the content bloat.

 

[IYIyTh]

Yes, no walls, everyone starts with 20 m@a, auto-patrolled towards your opponents base in fog of war.

one tile woodlines and unbuildable terrain because we just want units constantly spammed forward and no way to defend against nonsensical aggression without regard to resource investment.

Why not nerf defensive play for a what, 7th time since DE released?

 

[Überrushung]

The cost to destroy a castle in castle age is easily double the villager second cost of 650 stone, probably tripled. It has too much damage, it’s too cheap, has too much utility, and too many hit points.

That's why it's called the castle age. As soon as you hit imp, they're basically worthless.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

That's why it's called the castle age. As soon as you hit imp, they're basically worthless.

It is true Imperial Age castles are meant to function more like palaces.

 

[Plappertfan]

That's why it's called the castle age. As soon as you hit imp, they're basically worthless.

And how do you get trebs out? Especially with a civ without bbc or if you don‘t want to wait until chemistry is researched?
Or how do you defend in arabia your eco against raidings?

 

[Spring_]

Yes, no walls, everyone starts with 20 m@a, auto-patrolled towards your opponents base in fog of war.

one tile woodlines and unbuildable terrain because we just want units constantly spammed forward and no way to defend against nonsensical aggression without regard to resource investment.

Why not nerf defensive play for a what, 7th time since DE released?

you understand to make a build order for a specific time, transition, perfect production balance all while microing is harder than making a wall and "using your big non spam brain" to make farms and fc right?

 

[lecracheursagacite]

And how do you get trebs out? Especially with a civ without bbc or if you don‘t want to wait until chemistry is researched?
Or how do you defend in arabia your eco against raidings?

He doesn't mean useless at all I hope, only useless at resisting a dedicated direct assault.

 

[Uselessaurus Rex]

Just make them slower to build. I think 1.5x is good, with Sicilians bonus nerfed to 33%.

This way Sicilians' bonus is to build castles at current rate, and other castles are slower and can be denied more easily with towers, which will stop OP forward castles on certain maps like nomad.

 

[IYIyTh]

you understand to make a build order for a specific time, transition, perfect production balance all while microing is harder than making a wall and "using your big non spam brain" to make farms and fc right?

There is more than one way to play the game, Spring.

Always has been, always should be.

Lately though, mostly just m@a archer.

What would you be saying if Scouts or Huns had been nerfed for the sixth or seventh time since DE was released?

 

[Lokalo]

There is more than one way to play the game, Spring.

Always has been, always should be.

Lately though, mostly just m@a archer.

What would you be saying if Scouts or Huns had been nerfed for the sixth or seventh time since DE was released?

Doesn't it kind of contradict itself? Scouts are weaker as stronger walls are, as they suck against walls. So that's the main reason why you see m@a and archer mostly, as if you come with scouts 2 minutes later, opponent often is already full walled and you end up just hitting walls.

Although this is very complex problem. And I do agree the more variety there is/can be the better. Although spring is right, I mean there has to be some balance, not saying full walling shouldn't be an option. But that's just a fact, if you being full walled it's way easier to play, way easier to macro. Which means it has to take away something from you. And unfortunate often it doesnt feel that way. I myself feel like 200 elo lower without walling early, it's just so much harder to play without walls. And again, not saying people shouldn't full wall, I guess ideal idea would be eventually be full walled, even full stone walled for imp makes total sense even if that sounds for someone like a pus move.

I think there also is misjudgment when we talk about wall cost, because if you start walling early some, it feels costly, but it really depends if you wall some or full wall. Because right the same second you get full walled, you can get your range later, can have few units less, it doesn't really matter, you are fine. Especially when we are talking about scouts, usually the second I see guy goes scouts, I just put few vills to wall everything. That's just best counter and that's stupid. It should be my skill to be able to react and place troops in spot and stuff or at least get punished more for getting full walls. At same time it's stupid to not do that, because it's that easy. And this is more complex problem than it is just itself, because other things affects it also, like market, especially selling stone often helps to skip lots of feudal, meaning it shortens time you can punish player a lot.

For same reason going full feudal kind of seems almost always a loss nowadays, even if you kill all opponent's troops, until you get in through walls dude has some knights or xbow and you can't do much. Not saying full feudal should always work, but nowadays if I go archers to add some scouts feel just waste of time and prolonging my feudal which ends terribly with very small chance doing a lot of demage.

Similarly as in castle age paliside walls are paper to xbow and houses are like stone walls, that should be adjusted a bit, so paliside walls gives you bit more time to react and houses do not act like stone walls, as why should it? That's what stone walls should do. Especially not finished houses, is just dumb how house foundation built for 3 seconds can block 30 xbow for 15seconds.

 

[vince]

I love defensive play and walling should definitely be a viable strategy. but there just isn't much cost for it. if you full wall before a drush even comes in, your eco should be ridiculously far behind, but it doesn't seem to do so and is rather easy to catch back up. it wouldn't bother me if either they took slightly longer to build, or cost 1 more wood. maybe even making those changes only apply to dark age, then fall off once you hit feudal.

 

[LowEloNobody]

I love defensive play and walling should definitely be a viable strategy. but there just isn't much cost for it. if you full wall before a drush even comes in, your eco should be ridiculously far behind, but it doesn't seem to do so and is rather easy to catch back up. it wouldn't bother me if either they took slightly longer to build, or cost 1 more wood. maybe even making those changes only apply to dark age, then fall off once you hit feudal.

They already did this.
Even with a potato base, you need to wall ~50-60 tiles. That's 150-180 wood invested that your opponent did not invest. Your opponent should be a minute faster to a range, and then you are just dead.

 

[Lokalo]

They already did this.
Even with a potato base, you need to wall ~50-60 tiles. That's 150-180 wood invested that your opponent did not invest. Your opponent should be a minute faster to a range, and then you are just dead.

Well as I wrote before, that doesn't really work in reality. If you half wall your base, then yes, you quite fooked. But if you get fully walled, getting range later is not an issue. Also thing is that usually later in feudal opponent starts walling around too, especially if you know he will be castle age faster, you gotta get walled to avoid taking tons of demage. Is similar to the full house wall at early of castle age, in theory that should be way too costly, but I see that working out even in top level way too often.

Thing is that you lose early wood, but you can avoid doing as much army early, often even blaksmith or fletching/armor. So it sounds a lot 150-180, but in reality it pays off quite quickly. especially when you can quite safely put farms and stuff, while other also trying to get in and stuff.

And yes they did it and not once and not twice, but seems like need to do it again.

P.s. that usually works out the opposite as you say, is not that you use wood for full wall and you are dead, but you do not full wall and you suddenly are dead due some sneak scouts or archers or m@a, strange games you got there I would say lol

 

[Hunyadi_]

Hey what if I told you there was a civ with 25% cheaper castles?

And they have 2 eco bonuses. And they have the best scout and knight rush and the best paladin in the game.

And what if I told you that people still believe that's not a broken civ despite a 60%+ win rate? LOL