[Idea] Realistic City Siege

@Koshling
This is not new tag it comes from AND but it was used only to one building like hydro said
 
Nimek said:
@Koshling
This is not new tag it comes from AND but it was used only to one building like hydro said
Click to expand...

Maybe so but:
1) He was pointing at my undeveloped AI on the Building Repel tags and was reminding me of the necessity of developing AI on any further tags such as a Dynamic Defense one. Good points of course. Sigh...

and

2) It might be good to review and see if the tag y'all just implemented in wide use is applied to the AI building evals too or if it was just breezed over initially with an asset value in the xml on buildings where it was applied.
 
Hey all, I'm a relatively new player to C2C, but I wanted to comment on this.
From my perspective...

If the Palisade and the Earth Wall are this expensive, with such a defense requirement, I don't think they will be built a whole lot. This fix is much more useful for later civilizations, where the economy supports such defenses and the technology is there. The only city that would benefit from this would be my capital, and the capital is not likely to be the first attacked. As a result, I only see this being relevant when attacking enemy cities - which I find daunting in prehistoric/early ancient times anyways.

So personally, I would suggest not doubling the cost of palisade/earth wall; and/or, have the existing buildings provide a noticeable discount for upgrade building. Otherwise, I see no incentive to build palisades ever, and earth walls almost fall into the same category.

As for the gates being a unit, why not make it an autobuild structure like houses are? That way, you could even tie it to separate technology/resource requirements and have it be abstracted from units/structures.
 
Koshling said:
Is it clear that there is less incentive? The whole point of this change was to increase their defensive value. They might be better value now (I couldn't say, but the point is both value and cost have increased).

<snip>
Click to expand...

1st, How does doubling their build costs increase their defensive value? I don't see it. Please explain?
2nd, If it costs more to build for the AI (therefore takes more time to build it) it will choose something else less time expensive to build. Unless there is some coding that tells the AI to put all it's efforts into wall building. Is there such a mechanism in place now?

Now the early iterations of walls might not be a big problem (but might be for a player) but High walls and beyond will for this very fact.

The problem isn't with walls. The problem is over promoted units becoming Super units that No Walls or defensive adjustments will compensate for. And we Are seeing these in the mod right now. There needs to be a cap on promos not a proliferation and doubling wall build costs is not an effective counter.

If Nimek's units weren't so highly promoted he Would have a much harder time conquering his neighbors. Units have become over elevated from the ginormous amounts of XP and Promotions now readily accessible. So now we have attempts to right the ship (this very thread) and try to rebalance the whole military aspect while at the same time adding more AI to try to handle it. It's the proverbial dog chasing it's tail, the inflation spiral. The cure is a cap and limit on the granting of Promotions. They need to be harder to get. Not the doubling of wall build costs.

JosEPh
 
Impo All the walls need to be put back to the previous costs. Walls are not Nimek's real problem.

JosEPh
 
JosEPh_II said:
...The problem isn't with walls. The problem is over promoted units becoming Super units that No Walls or defensive adjustments will compensate for. And we Are seeing these in the mod right now. There needs to be a cap on promos not a proliferation and doubling wall build costs is not an effective counter.

If Nimek's units weren't so highly promoted he Would have a much harder time conquering his neighbors. Units have become over elevated from the ginormous amounts of XP and Promotions now readily accessible. So now we have attempts to right the ship (this very thread) and try to rebalance the whole military aspect while at the same time adding more AI to try to handle it. It's the proverbial dog chasing it's tail, the inflation spiral. The cure is a cap and limit on the granting of Promotions. They need to be harder to get. Not the doubling of wall build costs.

JosEPh
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I have been formulating in my head a topic on that particular subject. Specific example:

Spoiler :
I started a custom game, which for some reason always gives me a clubman. I carefully babysat the clubman, so he was level 5 or 6, plus the free in-combat promotions. This was from fighting a bunch of animals, and a few early Barbarian enemies. XP came from Barbarian Hunter. He was upgraded to Spiked Clubman later on.

Had a second Spiked Clubman that was level 3 plus a couple promotions.

Barbarian stack came (Barbarian World: On). As my cities were well defended, they just walked around pillaging everything. The regular units (2x stone axemen, 1x atlatlist) I built to counter, that had 2 XP, could not defeat them (less than 25% chance due to terrain). My upgraded units, however, absolutely destroyed them. The bigger unit had 90%+ chance of kill, and the "weaker" one had 50% but won all fights due to first strikes from Woodsman.

There is a bit of an issue, I feel - my regular units could not fight the barbarians at all, and acted simply as body guards. My promoted units completely wiped the barbarians off their 75% bonus terrain.

The deciding factor were the Woodsman promotions, providing negative combat bonus to enemies and first strikes to my units. Without this, I could not fight the barbarians at all as they would not engage any of my other targets.
 
If I may, one thing I noticed to dominate combat is first strikes. Perhaps, city fortifications could grant all defending units immunity to first strikes.

Special, advanced siege units could do the same to attacking units.

This may well even everything out.
 
Joseph said:
...The problem isn't with walls. The problem is over promoted units becoming Super units that No Walls or defensive adjustments will compensate for. And we Are seeing these in the mod right now. There needs to be a cap on promos not a proliferation and doubling wall build costs is not an effective counter.

If Nimek's units weren't so highly promoted he Would have a much harder time conquering his neighbors. Units have become over elevated from the ginormous amounts of XP and Promotions now readily accessible. So now we have attempts to right the ship (this very thread) and try to rebalance the whole military aspect while at the same time adding more AI to try to handle it. It's the proverbial dog chasing it's tail, the inflation spiral. The cure is a cap and limit on the granting of Promotions. They need to be harder to get. Not the doubling of wall build costs.
Click to expand...

There is a game option for cap of XP for units exept heroes and generals
BUT, I agree, there could also be a another BUG game option to cap units at a max winning chance of like 90% or 91%, or 92%, etc., regardless what the promos would give so the nearly 100% wins will stop AND you can keep many promotions, its just unlikely to get them.

One could even think a tag like MaxWinChance could, once discussed and balanced, be integrated into the eras and combined with techs/buildings. So the MaxWinChance for a unit would be ASIDE their stats. there could be units with a low MaxWinChance but high strength or the other way round.
So having nearly 100% win would become more rarely than now and the "has one revive tag" a bit more common (something like representing the possibility of regrouping of a beaten regiment after a lost battle)

To adjust wall costs or even enhance and micromange their appearance if wanted, as I described on the last post of the previous page (for all who missed it its also in the spoiler at the end of this post) is another thing and I don't think you should mix them up, in effect - shortsightingly at the best, nasty at worst - hindering progress... - as you, Joseph, always use to do and of what I always accuse you :cheers:
But at the bright side, you're like a radar: once you dislike something I can tell there is something to discover and improve because, unlike you, I wouldn't go away from the disturbance but instead try to overcome it, anticipating and integrating its chances and hoping to see the beautiful complex land behind the obstacle: yay, new civ strategy layers!!!

As mentioned my last post of previous page about diversity of walls and their realistic enhancement in regard to growing cities as well as city surroundings
Spoiler :
Nimek said:
Yes they are too cheap to build. Please double its cost If you Can.
Now walls are berg powerfull. Much more than before. It will be even stronger wten we finish.
Click to expand...

I just thought about something that might be reflected further:

For instance, your city is size 1 when you build a palisade, then grows to size 2 and gets attacked - realism would have it that only one part of the city is palisaded and the new quarters aren't. Well you could say that would be upgradeable then by some automechanism but how to do it?

Or as another example you build walls in a size 6 city and it grows to size 13. The new houses aren`t inside the original walls!

What could be done to adress this?

a) when clicking on the buildings list inside the city screen, the defensive buildings could get a little "+" and a popup would enable to rush-buy wall/palisade improvements, so the defensive buildings get adjusted to the new city size

b) when a city grows, you could assign some hammers to improve the original defenses, so for example if your city grows from 6 to 7 the hammers to have walls around the new "quarter" would be a % of the original walls costs.
For faster game speeds there could be a game option like "autoassign production to defenses upon growth"

The twist for micromanagers like me could be to decide for each and every city what to do about the defenses and when to do it.
For example you build palisades in your capital when starting the game but now you have other borders. No enemy is near your capital so you don't want to assign hammers to have the palisades expanded, surrounding your whole - now big - capital -> nothing happens there.

Your border cities, however, are threatened by a big enemy stack nearby, you could decide to autoassign hammers there for defenses - or do it manually by the buildings list or another button somewhere (like the sort buildings buttons (there is a little castle icon)).

If you wouldn't have upgraded your walls and the enemy attacks a size 7 city that had its walls built when being size 6 you would lose the population point or a building you recently constructed if the enemy wins the fight.

Strategically the impact would be as following:
As the newest (and probably more expensive) buildings would be in the not per se defended quarters (because there is still place for them to be put to), you'd have an incentive to protect the new quarters and expand your walls to include them quickly - at least in border cities.


Another complementing idea would be to have walls etc adjusted to the surroundings - as for example a city that is surrounded by water and has just one side to be attacked from land doesn't need the highest walls on its sea sides. The walls costs would also be lower as the walls would only cover 1/4 of the surroundings.

The idea came to me when reflecting the constrcution plans of the walls of Costantinople. Yes it had also walls to their sea side but the land side walls were way better.

In game terms: lets say you are a seafearing civ and you have a lot of coastal cities, controlling the seas, you wouldn't fear an amphibious attack but only land stacks, you could save the hammers for the sea side walls.

Or you would have a lot of land troops and control the hinterland but an advanced enemy threatens you (viking-like) with a lot of amphibious attacks and a superior fleet: you would most likely build the sea walls first - and maybe only. Cities with a lot of sea tiles surrounding them would have more expensive sea walls, of course.

How could this be implemented?

For instance by deviding walls into walls and sea walls. Sea walls would be cheaper and only balance the effects of "amphibious" promotion. You would not need siege towers to clear them but the siege ships from ancient instead, how are they called - quinceremes? Later gunpowered ship units could bombard the sea walls as well.

Regarding the AI implementation: Sea walls would be favourited for mainly seaside cities and walls for mainly inland cities.
Further specialization could be by deviding the strength count of enemy troops into naval strength and land strength. So, if an AI (war) enemy has more naval strength than itself it would be favouring sea walls as well. If Ai enemy has both, more naval and more land strength seaside cities would favour walls (as amphibious attacks are not that common).
 
DRJ said:
I just thought about something that might be reflected further:

For instance, your city is size 1 when you build a palisade, then grows to size 2
Click to expand...

I thought that was covered in the maintenance costs. Don't forget maintenance is a percentage of the city income not a flat amount of money. As you get more money more money goes into maintaining the walls.
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
I thought that was covered in the maintenance costs. Don't forget maintenance is a percentage of the city income not a flat amount of money. As you get more money more money goes into maintaining the walls.
Click to expand...

It's true but I like to adjust my maintenance to certain structures manually not by default. If I neglect a building maintenance it will be destroyed but I can grant a certain amount of maintenance and it will be preserved and by applying even higher margins it even would be improved - more or less quickly. But what I also suggested was that it could be improved by labour (hammers) present in the city, instead of outsourcing it to privatized jobs, it could be a socialised effort of the citizens. So employing a "company" to do the job would be more expansive (in terms of hammer per gold ratio) but commissioning citizens would take production away from flowing to the recent build and hurt therefore.
It's just a micromanage thing that would be fun for me.

So if a city has only a preserve maintenance value like 50% only certain parts of these cities would be really well defended and also "autoimprovement of walls by gold" or "autoimprovement of walls by hammers" would both off in BUG.

The defensive buildings maintenance margin (0-100%) could be adjusted in city screen menu (by clicking on the little castle button above the units and buildings icons)

The development order of a city would also define its vurneability (building the expensive buildings in the center may be a good idea but hard for a underdeveloped city to shoulder cost-efficiently!)
 
Dissonance said:
Hey all, I'm a relatively new player to C2C, but I wanted to comment on this.
From my perspective...

If the Palisade and the Earth Wall are this expensive, with such a defense requirement, I don't think they will be built a whole lot. This fix is much more useful for later civilizations, where the economy supports such defenses and the technology is there. The only city that would benefit from this would be my capital, and the capital is not likely to be the first attacked. As a result, I only see this being relevant when attacking enemy cities - which I find daunting in prehistoric/early ancient times anyways.

So personally, I would suggest not doubling the cost of palisade/earth wall; and/or, have the existing buildings provide a noticeable discount for upgrade building. Otherwise, I see no incentive to build palisades ever, and earth walls almost fall into the same category.

As for the gates being a unit, why not make it an autobuild structure like houses are? That way, you could even tie it to separate technology/resource requirements and have it be abstracted from units/structures.
Click to expand...
One reason I would support walls being doubled in cost is due to the fact that it was an enormous effort - far greater than the construction of most buildings of their time. For GAME balance, I do see the point of you and others here about their costs and I get it. Then again, historically, not all cities were given walls, only those in the cross hairs of constant warfare. Which WAS most...

Your point about the borderlands being where you'd want the defensive buildings like that is valid... but then again, that's what apt use of the merchants is for. (The only problem being again, does the AI get that? Can it really be easily trained to?)

But I'd be fine if the increase was reduced or eliminated if y'all are finding it too taxing. In a lot of ways I find most buildings a bit too taxing in general but I can accept the thinking behind it. Just consider it from an RL point of view for a moment though... they'd be a huge effort. And perhaps once all tags for them are fully implemented they'd be worth that added cost! Speeding up their build rates with the Protective trait may make that trait significantly more important as well.

I'd probably have the gates work almost exactly as you suggest, yes.

JosEPh_II said:
1st, How does doubling their build costs increase their defensive value? I don't see it. Please explain?
2nd, If it costs more to build for the AI (therefore takes more time to build it) it will choose something else less time expensive to build. Unless there is some coding that tells the AI to put all it's efforts into wall building. Is there such a mechanism in place now?

Now the early iterations of walls might not be a big problem (but might be for a player) but High walls and beyond will for this very fact.

The problem isn't with walls. The problem is over promoted units becoming Super units that No Walls or defensive adjustments will compensate for. And we Are seeing these in the mod right now. There needs to be a cap on promos not a proliferation and doubling wall build costs is not an effective counter.

If Nimek's units weren't so highly promoted he Would have a much harder time conquering his neighbors. Units have become over elevated from the ginormous amounts of XP and Promotions now readily accessible. So now we have attempts to right the ship (this very thread) and try to rebalance the whole military aspect while at the same time adding more AI to try to handle it. It's the proverbial dog chasing it's tail, the inflation spiral. The cure is a cap and limit on the granting of Promotions. They need to be harder to get. Not the doubling of wall build costs.

JosEPh
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but I'd prefer to fight fire with fire here. Yes, INVADING units tend to accumulate so many xp it sets off the balance between defenders and attackers (though not so much for my strategy where I have most of my xp coming from the generals I hoard in my military production cities which already puts the units so many steps into upgrades before they even hit the field.) But I do understand what you're pointing at.

My response theory is to provide an ongoing training dynamic for units stationed in cities so that they continue their training and gain the occasional XP simply for being there. This makes the military buildings more valuable to build in all cities rather than just the military production one and keeps your units in top shape. That project could be implemented at any time but the tag should be taught to the AI to be quite valuable on a building which still has yet to be done and when I go to update the other building AI tags for THIS project I'll get an opportunity to include it then.

One of the reasons I've asked for the buildings to be categorized is so I can more easily get a list of the buildings that would pick up tags like that and can then quickly spreadsheet out their effects to give them a reasonable rate of progression and then apply them. Once defenders start gaining xp just for having been around for a while, the balance with unit promos should be much closer.

I believe it would be more fun to have more units have more promotions (particularly if we have a wider variety) than establishing some sort of arbitrary limitation or cap to bring us back into a state of balance wouldn't it?

However, a source of reduction on XP will also be implemented as we divide up the differing types of GGs and more finely tuning our XP generation sources on training. In short, this means we won't be gaining Great Generals with such volume as Great Explorers and others would take up some of the volume of those GGs being birthed.

Great Military Instructors thereafter will not provide XP for ALL units but rather only to Combatants. The Great Explorers planted in the city would provide XP for Explorers and Animals. (though we may want a great animal trainer eventually to further divide that out...) Anyhow, that's a slice of the thinking taking place here. I mean to say, really, that the imbalance you're pointing at is under a lot of consideration at this time and this defense discussion is only one facet of how we might be able to address it.

Hydromancerx said:
@Nimek & TB

So do ou think I should revert the costs of the Palasades and Earth Wall based on Dissonance's comments? I think he has a point.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest to reverse it by about 75% - keep them about 25% more than they were due to the fact that they'd just be a huge effort for the populace to build these fortifications.

But that's just my opinion. I feel it would balance them out with the new tag that just got applied and perhaps more later as more defensive dynamics are added. I've always felt, as well, that the tag that some of our defensive buildings are using that add strength to archers in the city when defending is something we could find more uses for across the defensive scheme of buildings - gates give bonuses to melee defenders, walls to throwing and archery, towers to archery etc... The effectiveness of this would not diminish with bombardment until bombardment can knock out specific buildings.

Dissonance said:
For what it's worth, I have been formulating in my head a topic on that particular subject. Specific example:

Spoiler :
I started a custom game, which for some reason always gives me a clubman. I carefully babysat the clubman, so he was level 5 or 6, plus the free in-combat promotions. This was from fighting a bunch of animals, and a few early Barbarian enemies. XP came from Barbarian Hunter. He was upgraded to Spiked Clubman later on.

Had a second Spiked Clubman that was level 3 plus a couple promotions.

Barbarian stack came (Barbarian World: On). As my cities were well defended, they just walked around pillaging everything. The regular units (2x stone axemen, 1x atlatlist) I built to counter, that had 2 XP, could not defeat them (less than 25% chance due to terrain). My upgraded units, however, absolutely destroyed them. The bigger unit had 90%+ chance of kill, and the "weaker" one had 50% but won all fights due to first strikes from Woodsman.

There is a bit of an issue, I feel - my regular units could not fight the barbarians at all, and acted simply as body guards. My promoted units completely wiped the barbarians off their 75% bonus terrain.

The deciding factor were the Woodsman promotions, providing negative combat bonus to enemies and first strikes to my units. Without this, I could not fight the barbarians at all as they would not engage any of my other targets.
Click to expand...
I don't think its a bad thing that promos have such a powerful effect. But I do think that first strike is currently being over applied. I have some thoughts on first strike... its very powerful and moreso now that some combat dynamics have changed. I think we're going to have to get very clear on what first strike IS. Is it range of attack? Is it speed of attack at the beginning of battle? Does it represent the extra attacks that the unit gets in during a fight due to its speed and prowess? I think at the moment it lacks for clear effect definition and that its application should be reconsidered. I was thinking on this recently and I feel we may want to deepen the mechanism that we now consider first strike considerably so that the dynamic takes on much more meaning. By the time we're done with that, it may not even be first strike at all any more... I'll explain more as we get closer to being able to do some work on the subject.

Dissonance said:
If I may, one thing I noticed to dominate combat is first strikes. Perhaps, city fortifications could grant all defending units immunity to first strikes.

Special, advanced siege units could do the same to attacking units.

This may well even everything out.
Click to expand...
Immunity to first strikes? Ugh... its so black and white and so... related to the comments above. To define what makes a unit immune to first strike we need to figure out exactly what first strike IS! For now? I can see how this would be beneficial for city defense dynamics - IF we have tags that currently make it possible. If not, I'd prefer to have a deeper meaning established to first strike before going forward with more application of that and immunity to it.

Great and meaningful comments though... welcome to the forum!

DRJ said:
There is a game option for cap of XP for units exept heroes and generals
BUT, I agree, there could also be a another BUG game option to cap units at a max winning chance of like 90% or 91%, or 92%, etc., regardless what the promos would give so the nearly 100% wins will stop AND you can keep many promotions, its just unlikely to get them.
Click to expand...
hmm... I'd like to re-evaluate the necessity of that once many of the plans on the table are implemented first. It may or may not be necessary.

I read the rest of what you posted earlier and ... some great ideas with enormous overheads in setup time. And perhaps even may be a little TOO micromanaging. You know its complex when it hits my complex limit meter. Believe it or not, I do have one. Maybe waaaaaay down the road some of those things might be taken further into consideration, particularly the division between naval and land defenses.

Dancing Hoskuld said:
I thought that was covered in the maintenance costs. Don't forget maintenance is a percentage of the city income not a flat amount of money. As you get more money more money goes into maintaining the walls.
Click to expand...
I agree here... It's not JUST about maintaining the integrity of the wall against erosion but also about maintaining the extent of further expansion of the city. Not always perfectly perhaps, but enough to keep its value in warfare. During invasions, most of the outlying citizens would be brought inside the city gates anyhow and few critical buildings and services aside from the farmlands and mines would exist outside the gates.

DRJ said:
It's true but I like to adjust my maintenance to certain structures manually not by default. If I neglect a building maintenance it will be destroyed but I can grant a certain amount of maintenance and it will be preserved and by applying even higher margins it even would be improved - more or less quickly. But what I also suggested was that it could be improved by labour (hammers) present in the city, instead of outsourcing it to privatized jobs, it could be a socialised effort of the citizens. So employing a "company" to do the job would be more expansive (in terms of hammer per gold ratio) but commissioning citizens would take production away from flowing to the recent build and hurt therefore.
It's just a micromanage thing that would be fun for me.

So if a city has only a preserve maintenance value like 50% only certain parts of these cities would be really well defended and also "autoimprovement of walls by gold" or "autoimprovement of walls by hammers" would both off in BUG.

The defensive buildings maintenance margin (0-100%) could be adjusted in city screen menu (by clicking on the little castle button above the units and buildings icons)

The development order of a city would also define its vurneability (building the expensive buildings in the center may be a good idea but hard for a underdeveloped city to shoulder cost-efficiently!)
Click to expand...
Right, but perhaps a bit TOO micro-managing for most players. For that reason, I think it'd have to be optional and thus could not be considered in the overall mod balance really. And the programming for it? Ugh... I'd fear the project myself.
 
I wanted doubled cost because walls are more powerfull now and will be even stronger.

Now they are so cheap that build it s 3-4 turns in big city so it means you dont need build until you see a big stack of death near your border. This Can by easily exploited by human player.

I Agree that we Can power cost of pallisades and earth wall about 30%.
Adding immunity to first strikes by walls is also good idea.

Note what TB said not all cites had walls.
 
In this case I think I am going to side with the AI. It may be a bit of an exploit for the player not have to make walls until they see a big stack, however having AI not building walls at all because they cost too much or worse their economy tanks because they spend too much time making walls seems wrong.

In short I would rather have every AI with walls to make it harder for the player to attack them, than worrying about if the player has walls or not.

EDIT: Wall costs were returned to their original values.
 
For the first strike problem you could separate it in two:

First strike: Give X free attack before the start of the fight, should be used mainly by ranged unit to represent the unit attacking the other one before it have time to get to it (or in position when against other ranged units)

Skilled strike: Give the unit X% chance to do an extra attack each round in combat, Used to represent the speed and skill of the unit by attacking more often because it strike faster or have the skill to prevent the other unit the opportunity to attack.
 
Iam ok with that. I Can do this myself in my mod and test how impact on AI it has.

How add imunnity to first strikes to units inside walls?
 
robomani said:
For the first strike problem you could separate it in two:

First strike: Give X free attack before the start of the fight, should be used mainly by ranged unit to represent the unit attacking the other one before it have time to get to it (or in position when against other ranged units)

Skilled strike: Give the unit X% chance to do an extra attack each round in combat, Used to represent the speed and skill of the unit by attacking more often because it strike faster or have the skill to prevent the other unit the opportunity to attack.
Click to expand...

I just did a huge writeup that I posted in the main forum as you were writing this. We seem to be gelling in our thoughts here already. I LOVE how the skilled strike would fit into the picture. GREAT idea! (Hell on the odds evaluation but great idea nevertheless!)

How add imunnity to first strikes to units inside walls?
Click to expand...
I believe it would need to be a new tag. Check out my post on first strike to see my thoughts on that matter. I'd love your feedback.
 
Nimek said:
How add imunnity to first strikes to units inside walls?
Click to expand...

Even here do you really want this ALWAYS. For example - should something like artillery get first strike regardless of walls? Surely (if you really want to model this right) it needs to be a level thing - a unit has N first strikes of level M. A defensive structure (or unit) has immunity to first strikes below level X. If M > X the attacker's first strikes apply, else they don't.

So units like archers might get first strikes at level 1, and walls grant immunity to that. However early range siege weapons (catapults etc.?) would be level 2 (they throw stuff over your walls), and so on...

Now, whether this is worthwhile in gameplay terms is a totally different question...
 
Might be just TOO simple, but you can increase the costs of walls AND increase the defence they provide as well. With Walls giving 200% (or even more) instead of 20% bonusdefence it would make them very important buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Simple fix using AI friendly/Existing Game Mechanics to end the World of Axeman and the World of Catapults
Replies
2
Views
1K
MassRiflemen
M
T
how is that possible? realistic siege on, and lost city with 80% defenses and walls
Replies
1
Views
1K
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
E
[BTS] Earth Equatorial Islands - a more accurate realistic map for Civ4 BTS RFC
Replies
5
Views
329
HNation
HNation
A
Late game siege rework discussion
Replies
7
Views
1K
Arthur Jama
A
N.Core
Whole new unit line idea: Sapper line
Replies
14
Views
1K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom