You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.20 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Should Walls be Improved?
Topic Subject:Should Walls be Improved?
posted 11-16-05 07:12 PM EDT (US)         
In the last week I've been trying walls in different situations including stopping early raids, keeping the enemy out in general, as a temporary alarm system and creating chokepoints.

I would now have to agree w/ people that said wall HP are far too low. Yes they work as a 20 second advance warning, but shouldn't walls do more than just give a few seconds warning? I think they should. I've also tried upgrading them and it doesn't seem to keep the walls up for more than a few extra seconds. I wouldn't mind this if the upgrade was cheap, but it's not, it is VERY expensive at something like 400 wood and 600 gold.

Lastily I tried using the HC card which improves wall HP "substantially" according to the card. This combined w/ the church upgrade still didn't make my walls any kind of true deterrent. At one point I watched 13 janiseries tear my wall down and began thinking that's a "little" rediculous that such a common colonial age troop in small numbers can burn a wall down so speedily.

Maybe ES simply forgot that wall HP needs to be much higher because when a wall is attacked your enemy doesn't need to destroy the whole wall, just one TINY section of it to get in. With a handful of troops attacking it the wall just crumbles no matter the upgrades or towers behind it.

AoK walling was very good because walls could actually stand up to a bit of abuse before crumbing so rushers had to decide whether or not they would continue their rush and commit fully to gambling on breaking through in time or pulling back and attempting to boom.

Several simple suggestions:
Increase wall HP substantially
Give walls much higher armor
Nerf foot troops effectiveness against them. Make cannons or grenadiers the only viable ways to take them down fast.

Lastly if you're investing resources in a wall then you don't want them all wasted because it gets breached in 15 seconds by just a few troops. I'd like to hear what others think about walls currently.


"Bonjour, ya cheese eatin surrender monkeys!"
posted 11-16-05 07:34 PM EDT (US)     1 / 20       
Agreed - palisades are almost right, but at least stone walls had to be stronger. It's like a joke, when a couple of standard infantry units rip down a wall in less than a minute. Human units nearly so effective as siege weapons ? That's not right and absolutely not realistic.
When you look into protos: every building has siege armor 0% - at least defensive buildings walls and outposts had to have much more hitpoints and armor. The outposts are at current absolutely useless, pure decoration.

But I have the impression, it is intended for having this game more 'arcade style' than a higher strategic factor.

posted 11-16-05 08:05 PM EDT (US)     2 / 20       
I do wish that the walls where stronger to serve the perpose they did previously but i guess now we can only use them to dely an attack
However, walls do pinpoint the attack so instead of a mass of enemies everywhere, you just have to stop the flow of units coming through the gap
(id: echowinds)
posted 11-16-05 08:13 PM EDT (US)     3 / 20       
This reminds me of the uselessness of walls in AoM.

posted 11-16-05 08:17 PM EDT (US)     4 / 20       
Walls are really important especially to turtlers/oomers like me against rushers. I do wish that walls were stronger and towers with a bigger build limit. They should do what u said. They should also make the gates lockable since units just run outside since there is no stand ground stance.

I wish units could be put on walls shooting down than shooting through walls but i guess its too late for that now.

[This message has been edited by ShadowZX (edited 11-16-2005 @ 08:18 PM).]

posted 11-16-05 08:33 PM EDT (US)     5 / 20       
Guys walls are fine.... all a wall needs to do is stop the guy for long enof so u can move ur army over their... it does this....

Mokon | | | AoE3 Rate 2200~ | | |
  • To check out my Age of Empires III Strategy Guide click here!
  • The price of my guide has been reduced! Check it out!
  • New TWC Recorded Games Posted on my Media Page!
  • ShadowZX
    posted 11-16-05 08:53 PM EDT (US)     6 / 20       
    Yes, Walls are fine but wont it be better if the walls are stronger so they can do more than just alert about the enemy.

    I am not saying that walls r useless now, theres nothing wrong with them, i just think it would be better if they were stronger and its still ok even if they aren't, just have to adapt i guess.

    [This message has been edited by ShadowZX (edited 11-16-2005 @ 08:58 PM).]

    Insane Sheep
    posted 11-16-05 09:21 PM EDT (US)     7 / 20       
    Your problem is that I didn't see anywhere any talk of an army. I find walls to be excellent and can count a great deal if they use mainly melee units, like Lancers or Rodeleros. They help protect, they don't protect.

    "I found no one ripe for many of my thoughts; the case of 'Zarathustra' proves that one can speak with the
    utmost clearness, and yet not be heard by any one." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
    "The fearless are merely fearless. People who act in spite of their fear are truly brave."
    Oprichniks are the best units in AoE3. Why? It's elementary, they're Horse-riding Russian Pirates, nothing beats Horse-riding Russian Pirates.
    posted 11-16-05 09:29 PM EDT (US)     8 / 20       
    Walls should be more... solid. Pallisades are the advanced warning and minor delay - an actual wall... well, it should be made of ROCK. Rock isn't something you devastate with muskets and swords. That's the one weak point I've found in most historical RTS games - walls are just too wimpy. Walls are supposed to be massive deterants and defensive structures that can take a long time to bring down - up until somebody invented canons. Without canons, walls should be nasty to take down, IMO.

    Looking forward to AoE3 - big population cap > AoM
    posted 11-16-05 09:55 PM EDT (US)     9 / 20       
    Stone walls should be a great deal stronger. An option for locking the gates would be nice. Otherwise, walls are fine.
    posted 11-16-05 10:13 PM EDT (US)     10 / 20       
    If walls had more HP etc then you could throw up layer after layer of wall and just sit back and laze around with culverins. (I tried it once...didn't work out so well...)

    Anyways thats just my 3.14cents

    ESO - Tacos (shared)
    Halo2 - Mr Anderson3
    posted 11-16-05 10:53 PM EDT (US)     11 / 20       


    If walls had more HP etc then you could throw up layer after layer of wall and just sit back and laze around with culverins. (I tried it once...didn't work out so well...)

    u can do it with the current wall. spamming wall is easy, but ***

    it can make the game last 2 hr+ (since cannon don't auto fire at wall)

    Stop spamming! No one care about ur damn post count!

    [This message has been edited by WH_demoneyekyo (edited 11-16-2005 @ 10:54 PM).]

    posted 11-16-05 11:55 PM EDT (US)     12 / 20       
    Agreed. At the very least upgraded "stone" walls should be much stronger. Especially considering the upgrade is seriousely expensive (a ripoff currently).

    "Bonjour, ya cheese eatin surrender monkeys!"
    posted 11-17-05 06:25 AM EDT (US)     13 / 20       
    I agree that walls should be slightly stronger, but I believe that walls should not be able to stop a rush completely.

    Some ideas on walls improvement:
    - Increase the base HP of walls automatically every age (on top of the current set of upgrades)
    - Allow walls to block x% of enermy fire going through the wall. (eg: let x% be 20%, every 1 out of 5 shots from an enemy would be absorbed by the wall instead of hitting the target)
    - Give walls better armor, but give seige units a bonus against walls.

    posted 11-17-05 09:05 AM EDT (US)     14 / 20       
    Asked before, will ask again:

    Is there any way to repair walls, without having to click on each and every single one of them?
    I tired to pull a box around them, but the repair command would not work.

    Any ideas?

    I am somewhat tempted to say that walls should be stronger, because I am a turtle, but the truth is that the good old castle/wall time is over! Uneasy feeling without a shell, but as firepower increases mobility becomes the best defence - not walls.

    Solution: make walls insanely expensive and almost impossible to destroy (at least without siegeweapons). So nobody can afford to wall half the map off, but only strategic positions, utilitzing natural strongpoints, as hilltops,cliffs etc. That will make a "fort" feel of the new world vs the "city wall" feel of the middle ages.

    I like UW_Avalons idea of the wall actually absorbing fire. Good point!

    Just got the X-pack!
    Playing Classic Age3 again
    Scenario Contest Winner
    posted 11-17-05 01:01 PM EDT (US)     15 / 20       


    Guys walls are fine.... all a wall needs to do is stop the guy for long enof so u can move ur army over their... it does this....

    Not always.

    If a player uses 3 Mortars (500 attack damage each) to take down a section of a stone wall (3000 hit points), it will take only two shots (from each Mortar) to take the wall down.
    How long does that take? About 10 seconds.
    Is that enough of a warning? I am not so sure about that.

    Walls have only one upgrade in AOE 3.
    AOM has two wall upgrades.
    If we had a second upgrade for walls (100% more for hit points), then it would take 20 seconds for 3 Mortars to take a down a section of a wall.
    Not much more time, but it’s better than 10 seconds.

    In 2V2 games when I attack one of the players, I usually send all the units I have got.
    Normally it would be around 60-70 units (once I reached the pop limit).
    Why do I send all my units, and not leave anything behind to defend my base?
    Because it takes many units to launch a successful assault.

    So, all my base has at that point, is walls.

    When my second opponent then tries to attack my base (while I am busy attacking his ally), I have no units in my base and cannot train new units (because I am at my pop limit).
    So when this happens I need to send all my units back to the base, and that takes more than 10 seconds.

    Am I the only person here that is having such problems?
    Did anyone else experience similar scenario.

    So yes, stronger walls can help, and the game won’t be too defensive.

    posted 11-17-05 01:09 PM EDT (US)     16 / 20       
    -Walls are fine...though I don't build them too often...You just need to build a lot of them in layers. Also, don't just depend on walls to defend your village, but also build towers and use other buildings to form a "barrier" around your village...And if you don't form the barrier, it will at least slow down the army.

    "Fool, I have auto-dialing!" -Techno Bill
    Scenario Contest Winner
    posted 11-17-05 01:45 PM EDT (US)     17 / 20       


    Walls are fine...though I don't build them too often...You just need to build a lot of them in layers. Also, don't just depend on walls to defend your village, but also build towers…

    Who has the time to build several layers of walls?
    That takes too long, and it is not practical.

    I always build towers, but the artillery can take them down very fast.

    One thing that I was wondering about, is how towers are so over powered against ships, so they always win against ships.

    On the other hand, they are almost useless against artillery.

    That does not seem right to me.

    [This message has been edited by MosheLevi (edited 11-17-2005 @ 01:46 PM).]

    posted 11-17-05 02:13 PM EDT (US)     18 / 20       
    -Walls are built quite quickly and they are very cheap. I don't see how it is impractical to build multiple layers of walls...2-3 layers is enough. In many of the game I've played, my opponet either:

    1. Builds a single layer wall and builds a lot of towers and units to protect it (usually on the 'frontline'), or
    2. Builds a multi-layered wall with a few towers and a few units to protect it (usually in a "out-of-the-way" place).

    -Towers are supposed to be good against ships, not artillery. I mean, what would be the point of creating a cannon to destroy a tower if the tower could kill the cannon?

    "Fool, I have auto-dialing!" -Techno Bill
    Kaziglu Bey
    posted 11-17-05 02:24 PM EDT (US)     19 / 20       
    Making non-explosive units unable to attack walls maybe? I don't mind it if mortars punches through quickly, but I kinda feel that artillery isn't needed very oftenly since many soldier units are quite good at razing buildings on their own.
    Scenario Contest Winner
    posted 11-17-05 03:15 PM EDT (US)     20 / 20       


    Towers are supposed to be good against ships, not artillery.

    Why? What is behind that logic?


    I mean, what would be the point of creating a cannon to destroy a tower if the tower could kill the cannon?

    The same point of creating a war ship to destroy a tower when the tower can also destroy the ship.
    It works both ways, both units can counter each other.

    Even if towers would have a bonus against artillery, two or more artillery pieces can still take a tower down pretty fast. It’s a question of numbers, and the numbers favor artillery usually.

    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames