Is Walls Really Necessary in Low Elo?
- This topic has 6 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Greetings everyone,
I am a new player with an Elo score of around 700.
Initially, my Elo score plummeted to 500 due to my lack of knowledge and poor raids.
However, I have been able to win most of my games with the Gurjaras civilization in open maps.
I have found that since I stopped focusing solely on my economy and walling my base, I have won most of my games with one or two small raids with un-upgraded scout cavalry followed by a castle age archer raid with Gurjaras units.
When facing an opponent who is building stables and is about to launch a raid, I build two towers to protect my base.
Additionally, if my opponent has a lead in the game, I focus on scouting to prioritize the unit and upgrade that I need.
I find that palisade walls are easy to destroy, and towers offer more defensive potential at the cost of a delayed Castle/Second Town Centre, or more villagers on stone.
I want to know if this strategy is viable at higher Elo scores, and if I should adapt before moving up.
Additionally, what are the pros and cons of using towers and walls in feudal battles?
Towers are pretty bad in feudal after their nerf.
They fall very quickly and force you to put vills on stone in order to 3 TC boom in castle.
If a player towers, there is always somewhere else to raid him.
You always want to be the aggressor, so you need to start raiding, then start making your own palisade walls to close off your base as you continue to raid.
Palisades are weak, but as long as you have a villager or two nearby to make a house or something behind them, they won’t get in.
You want to continue to wall your base with other buildings, especially military production buildings and houses.
If you’re improperly walled in castle and imperial age, you will constantly be dealing with the headache of micro to defend yourself while micro to raid.
Your attention is much less split when you just have reliable walls to prevent little raids from coming in.
In Imp, forget about it.
If you are not walled, I will build 6 stables on each side of your base, set the garrison point to the center of your town, and queue up hussars, and your eco will never recover.
I’m like a twelve hundred Xbox play, which makes our elos pretty similar lol.
A little exaggerated, but mostly true.
At my elo, nobody is hitting feudal much faster than everyone else, and most people are raiding with more units than they need to early on.
I skip Palisades, but find stone walls worth it.
I don’t play around my unique unit and have less need for castles so I can use them aggressively or defensively, but don’t worry about using them passively to spawn an army.
This means investing in stone walls, the very second I hit feudal, proves incredible efficient.
Three workers spend only stone and it counters any military the enemy makes untill castle age.
If they do spawn any military, I have an eco lead since I only spent stone.
From there, I extend past my stone walls for resources on the map and rely on military to pressure and defend.
I think that at high elos the expenditure of stone isn’t worth if for, if not for a fast imperial out of getting a castle down, for the many capabilities that castles offer a player who knows how to use them.
I don’t know how to use castles optimally, and nobody at my elo really does.
They simply aren’t as valuable, except for spawning fun military unit.
That means the benefits of early feudal stone walls are worth far more than the benefits of a castle.
I also don’t think pros are easily stopped with stone walls.
I constantly stop a raid of ten light cav in the feudal age.
It’s dumb how big of an advantage that is.
Four light cav can kill a lot of villagers with a little micro if the enemy base is open and unprotected, especially without loom.
Ten, however, requires the same micro for a small amount more benefit, and costs literally the amount of food it takes to get to the castle age.
I’ll sacrifice two hundred stone for eight hundred food in the feudal age every day of the week.
Stone wall and three tc boom.
No, absolutely not viable at higher levels.
Walls are way cheaper and actually do the job.
You say they are easy to destroy but at higher levels they make houses behind them in response to units attacking them.
Think of it like this what would you prefer:
1) Knights hitting your walls, you making houses behind the walls and the knights hitting your houses.
You spent 200 wood say and 2 vills are idle as they are making houses.
No vills die.
2) Knights are running around inside your base, farmers dying left and right or idle hiding inside a TC.
Towers shooting at the knights, not really doing much damage.
I know which one I would prefer.
Walls are OP, but you don’t need them.
Lemme explain: Walls shut down aggression completely.
If you wall and keep your walls up (by repairing, walling behind, scaring the opponent away with ranges units/siege/monks), then no one can harm you and your eco is absolutely safe.
No other strategy offers this, and that for mostly little reaources and needed attention.
Especially for slower civs (and players) walls are key.
But: You don’t need to go that way.
You also don’t need those towers.
You need nothing at home if your army keeps the opponent busy, and saving on those resources can give you enough forward momentum that you never need to stop attacking until way into the game.
I like playing aggressive and open and went up to about 1.3k ELO with no or only small walling.
At that point the ability of my opponents to counterattack properly was (in many to most games) good enough to punish me for my greed, and I needed to learn the art of walling …
Towers are great against archers, but they do little damage to scouts and can be knocked down very easily by men at arms.
So, a tower is good if you want to protect an exposed gold mine for instance
Walls might be crucial in certain map types but is not that necessary if you have the upper hand in scouting and raiding.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
