Make Barricades more Worthwhile

It is true that when you have the elite bonus up and running Tough Barricades are really difficult to get through!

But I hate having to swap them out every time the bonus wears off!

And obviously Tough Barricades were created to make the Barricades a useful item!

So I’m going to recommend another way to balance them.  When I’m going through a base, often one hammer strike can hit 2 or 3 blockages/barricades. If though barricades had only a 50% weakness to blunt attacks I wouldn’t be able to knock them all down at once.  I’d have to alternate fire and blunt attack!  Which would make creative mixes of blockades and barricades more useful.

Plus it is more logical wood is more elastic and would be more resilient to blunt force then something like iron, cement, or most stone.

I think they’re tough enough just the way they are… We don’t want to make attacking impossible…

This might not have to do with this specific idea but I was thinking about barricades damaging the troops and king attacking it since it does have spikes

One thing to note is, barricades are the cheapest obstacle, so it is only logical they are the weakest. Stronger are blockades, even stronger then are boosted barricades (demanding constant money for the boost). 

You still can upgrade barricades faster and cheaper than blockades, so chances are you have near-max barricades before you get even mid-lvl blockades, making the unboosted barricades still somewhat useful in between, unless you really have near-max blockades, at which point turning the barricade boost on might be the more useful option anyway. 


And reducing blunt weakness for barricades would either mean also reducing it for boosted barricades (definitely not a good idea!!), or having a boost that adds additional blunt-weakness compared to regular barricade, which seems a bit contradicting… 


Also, for the blunt weakness logic… wood can be quite elastic, but depending on type of wood and dryness of wood, it can also be very rough and not elastic at all… on the other hand, stone/cement isn’t elastic, but metal definitely is very elastic and will mostly bend rather than break. As blockades seem to consist (largely) from metal, I’d not say it needs a higher blunt weakness than wood. And in fact, metal just is overally more stable than wood, so it is just the stronger material. The ice weakness of blockades already is mainly for balancing rather than logic. 


Moreover, hammerstrike has a very low range, so if you can hit 2 or even 3 barricades with 1 hammerstrike, then the fault lies on the base builder having set up a bad design with e.g. across-path-overlap reachable barricades, as you definitely can’t hit 2 (let alone 3!) subsequent barricades on your lane of path with a hammerstrike. At higher levels, these across-path-reachable barricades are rarely ever present, and are generally seen as a big mistake in base design. 

our alliance has permanent tough barricades so i don’t need to worry about boost wears off… 


i think saved base and instant switch will fix this



and you can hit 3 barricades with 1 spell? that’s a bad base design… I make sure people can’t do that in my base… well, can’t stop super high range spells like blizzard… 

Barricades are worthwhile enough already.

Hit 3 barricades with one spell? That’s the defensor’s fault.

Elite Boost wear off? Well, you could ask your alliance members to donate more and upgrade the Alliance Tower so you’d have a constant boost

Changing designs? Well, the saved designs suggestions may help here


Weakest yes.  Useless no!


The knight is the weakest unit but because he requires low morale he can beat some of the strongest units if used correctly.

If they made Barricades even weaker, but they only used up half an obstacle, I’d be wildly happy!

Knights deal normal damage, so for them it doesn’t make any difference at all whether barricades have a 10000% weakness or 100% resistance to blunt damage. 


And personally, I haven’t had any good success with max-lvl unboosted knights on any high lvl base… boosted knights are a different thing, but then they’re boosted, not regular, and boosts obviously can change everything in this game… 

Plus, knights are in fact the first unit in the game, but they’re also the one with the highest amount of lvls, so a max lvl knight have 6 times as much attack and health than a lvl 1 knight, while for example max arbs only have 2 times as much health as lvl 1 arblasters, and 2.6 times as much damage. Also, keeping in mind there are 11 lvls to upgrade for the knights to reach max lvl (12), they are in fact, concerning upgrades, no cheaper than other units. Regarding their raw strength per morale: True, unbeatable, but also any kind of AoE damage (many troops, all spells) and ranged units (many troops, most towers) is most effective against knights due to their large numbers, so they are the easiest troop to mass-spawn, and also the most-vulnerable type of army on the other hand. 

Thus, you can’t just compare knight and barricade without looking at the differences. 


Barricades in contrast are per se not closer together or there in greater numbers at one spot than blockades, so they have not increased weakness against AoE damage. Also, e.g. frosters don’t attack barricades at all, making them immune against frosters altogether. Barricades are truly the cheapest obstacle to upgrade, and also the quickest to upgrade by far - I upgraded 12 new, lvl 1 barricades all to lvl 13 all in 2-3 weeks without raiding more often than usual, and without any money/time problems, when the elite boosts came out. So they in fact deserve to be weaker.

And again, a high lvl barricade was and still is stronger than a low lvl blockade. I had a lvl 12 or 13 barricade (unboosted!) in my base for months, while upgrading my blockades (which took me many months), and before I got any blockade beyond lvl 9 (where they would have been better than that barricade), with max blockade lvl being like 12, elite barricades were released and (see above) I just threw away all my blockades for new barricades. 


The comparison to knights has nothing to do with Knights killing barricades!

Barricades can be weak, but!  If they are going to be weak they should only take up HALF an obstacle so you can either put in 2 barricades or one blockade.

With the same argument I want to be able to pack 50 gargoyle towers or 40 arrow towers into my base, because they are weaker than skull towers and I can have 17 skull towers. 


50’s a bit much.  But I don’t have a problem with an increase.

Let me tell you that that argument of spending fewer “obstacles” with each barricade is bad…

Maxed Castle Gate has a path lenght of 29 and space for 13 obstacles, so with that idea the user would be able to place 26 barricades, 26 out of 29 paths will have a barricade? that’s insane! No one will never be able to get 100 % in that base.

And it’s the same for towers, having to destroy like 30 towers is way too much…

It would need some balancing, but you would make the same argument against allowing more knights via lower morale if it weren’t already in the game.

You can easily use area damage to decimate knights, which you can’t for static structures of which each single one occupies a full tile and where under no circumstances several structures can be on the same tile. 

So the knights are balanced by area damage weakness (all spells, most towers, many troops; or for short “most that is part of RR2”), while structures aren’t and can’t be. 


About the power of area damage, try out the following: Put a skull tower (or regular bomb tower) right behind (or e.g. a gargoyle tower before) a blockade/barricade at the start of your base, and remove the first few waves. Now test your base and summon mortars (why mortars? they don’t attack towers or obstacles, making them the perfect test dummies here).

They will pile up in front of the obstacle, which makes sure none leaves the “testing area”. And the tower will shoot bombs (or e.g. spit fire) at them.

You will notice that all mortars within the area will take damage. If there’s just one mortar, there’s 1 “unit” of damage dealt, if there are 50 mortars, 50 “units” of damage will be dealt (1 to each mortar), so the more units you have there, the more damage they take in total. 

And the exact same things applies to knights: The more knights you have, the more damage they take by anything that deals area damage - which is, see above, a lot of units and structures and all spells. And exactly because knights are so cheap and mainly strong in bigger numbers, you will always have many knights if you want to kill something with them, so they will always take a lot of damage. 


And, just saying, I haven’t seen any pure knight waves since a long time… guess why :grinning:


That’s actually incorrect.  I’ve destroyed 3 barricades with a single hammer strike.


As we’ve said before, that’s bad strategy at positioning the barricades (user’s fault), so it’s not something the game makes happen automatically (the programmed knights’ movement usually makes them easy targets for the area damage that Florian just mentioned)

If you actually destroyed the barricades, it’s still the user’s fault for not upgrading them enough. I don’t understand how you can not see the difference yet 

You went from: “under no circumstances” to “that’s bad strategy” baring in mind early there was a claim of over crowding which would force them to be more clustered. 

What I am hearing is you will argue anything for any reason from any grounds no matter the validity or applicability of your point.

I am not maxed level but find Barricades to actually be stronger than Blockades. The reason is the ability to take down multiple Blockades with Bladestorm is much easier than taking down Barricades with Firestorm. I can usually clear through 3 Blockades with one Bladestorm but can only clear through one and a half Barricades with Firestorm. To add to this, my Firestorm does around 600 more damage than my Bladestorm. I may be off here but this has been my experience, so far.

Valid point, blockades definitely have a big weakness to bladestorm… 




You’re definitely wrong here. What I said before is unquestionably true: Under no circumstances several structures can be on the same tile. This sentence is universally valid, you just can’t place two or more structures onto the same tile. 


Whether or not you can destroy several structures with a single spell is a completely different question which is totally irrelevant for the truth of my statement above. 


Now, concerning the argument of “you can destroy several structures (e.g. barricades) with a single spell (e.g. hammer strike)”… well, you can also destroy 3 blockades with a single hammer strike then, or 3 towers, or some combination of barricades/blockades/traps/towers.

So, according to your argumentation, then everything would be too weak just because you can construct a way to double-hit (or multi-hit) any kind of structures. 



And again, if you can do that (destroy 3 obstacles with 1 hammer strike cast), then the base design is absolutely terrible in that regard. You will always be able to construct a horrible base layout, but then saying “please improve structure XY, it is too easy to beat it!” is not the way to go, but changing your base layout is. After all, if a base is built totally awfully, then it in fact shouldn’t be challenging to beat. Challenging to beat is what well-built bases should be. 

And, just looking through players’ base layouts, there’s a lot of “standard designs” and copying going on, so one doesn’t even need to be a good base designer to get a good base design (even though pure mindless copying can of course go wrong), while one definitely needs to think on one’s own when it comes to using spells correctly.