[GS] Ancient Walls now provide 100 outer defense?

[BarbarianHunter]

I have to agree with that. Rams are a bit stupid in the way they work right now. They are probably working as intended but were badly designed.

In the latest Deity 6otM (Kongo-Domination-Classical Era start) i basically eradicated 2 civilizations with sword (UU)+Ram (Archers played a very minor role in eliminating the 2nd), then another one with Knights and later Muskets + Ram. In the end of the game i had 2 lvl5 Helicopters using the Escort promotion to quickly move ... those 2 battering rams. Can you imagine anything more stupid than modern combat helicopters dropping battering rams next to a modern city to destroy it's fortifications?

They could make us pay gold to upgrade to an industrial era version if you want use from industrial era units. Require niter to upgrade, explosive or what-not. Using the reality based logic, helicopters should probably ignore walls in their entirety (as they would simply fly over them). I must say, however, that I rather like rams the way they are. Then again, I kind of like the gas clouds and lightning bolt animations that accompany spiritual combat as well.

 

[Stilgar08]

On emperor and below this still is a rather theoretical discussion for ancient and classical - If not Tamar, I rarely see walls on these levels... So Archer rush might still be alive and kicking...
Immortal and Deity is a different thing but nevertheless walls have been too easy to get over IMO.
Personally I think it's a good move in general - It WILL make it harder for AI to conquer cities but they are not very good at it right now either. Will help them being around longer therefore giving them a chance to evolve...

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well. they better fix the map generator so you don't immediately get boxed in. Have no chance but to war in these cases.

 

[DWilson]

I think the siege mechanics would be much better if your tools were obsoleted by each successive level of walls. For example, whatever is after ancient walls obsoletes the battering ram, whatever is after that absolutes the siege tower, whatever is after that is hard to break down by catapults, and so on. Doing that would make it worthwhile to build later forms of walls, while pushing back against the oddity that is battering rams being useful in the industrial or later eras.

With regard to range scaling, I think it all makes more sense if you consider it based solely on what units should be having as range compared to their contemporaries. Archers would have notably better range than swordsman, machine guns designed for distance fire would have better range (in part due to volume) than infantry, and so on. That said, it does look ridiculous when comparing different era units to one another. There's no reason the rifles of an infantry unit shouldn't be able to hit some archers from the same distance. I'm not sure there is a good way to balance across generations of technology that doesn't notably imbalance combat.

 

[acluewithout]

On emperor and below this still is a rather theoretical discussion for ancient and classical - If not Tamar, I rarely see walls on these levels... So Archer rush might still be alive and kicking...
Immortal and Deity is a different thing but nevertheless walls have been too easy to get over IMO.
Personally I think it's a good move in general - It WILL make it harder for AI to conquer cities but they are not very good at it right now either. Will help them being around longer therefore giving them a chance to evolve...

Walls only benefit the human player. Making them stronger only makes the game easier for human players, although might help city states survive a touch longer.

I think the combat system has all the pieces right, it just needs to rebalance them.

Fundamentally, battering rams need to be nerfed, and Seige need to be resistant to ranged attacks. I think the best solution for rams would be that they lose the %damage to wall affect completely, and instead just give the linked unit +5 or +10 v district defences. That way, hitting walls with Melee would hurt - as it should. Seige should then get +5 or +10 defence v ranged if they haven’t moved that turn - they need something, because Seige just gets chewed up by district defences currently.

After that, you just need a few minor tweaks. Make Anti-Cav cheaper, and maybe buff them v melee and ranged in specific situations (eg fortified on a hill); make Knights harder to access and build (that’s hopefully happening in GS); nerf Light Cav against cities (eg -17 v cities).

After all that, you might then look at maybe improving the value of Forts and walls a little. Like maybe Forts give +0.5 housing, and walls buff adjacent farms. Maybe ranged have ZOC if garrisoned in fort. Maybe you get +1 loyalty for each unit garrisoned in a fort, in addition to any loyalty for a garrisoned unit in your city centre (that’s probably too strong).

Whatever. But nothing is going to improve unless battering rams get nerfed and seige are more resistant to ranged attacks.

...and also the AI gets better... but that’s a whole other thing...

 

[Leathaface]

Cities need units to make an effort defending them. Rams are fine.

The AI needs to make a better effort to defend their cities, they can't defend their cities properly at present.

 

[Myomoto]

I never understood why rams/siege towers affect ALL melee units by the city, and not just the unit stacked with them.

Catapults also need a serious rework. Right now they are only viable with the extra movement from a nearby Great General. I think making them a support unit as well would make more sense, i.e. let them stack with a melee unit. The all siege weapons need to be operated by another unit.

 

[Disgustipated]

but that catapults need 2x as long to break the walls means they will be exposed too long- and die in the process.

Agreed. This seems like a nerf to catapults to me. Unless they are buffing them somehow. I can't remember the last time I built a catapult. Rams are cheap, and you only need one.

helicopters should probably ignore walls in their entirety (as they would simply fly over them).

Well by that time you are facing urban defenses. Which means your helicopters are dealing with the realities of city based combat, flying amongst buildings, dealing with hidden foes, etc, hardly something I feel helicopters are well suited for. They are fine as is. Great for picking off units in the open as the U.S. did during the gulf war. If anything, helicopters shouldn't be able to capture cities. But this may represent cavalry divisions in the U.S. army.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I build a few catapults usually so that I've got some ready to go to upgrade to artillery. They're also nice in border cities which are close to AI cities - I like to plop an encampment within 2 tiles of an enemy city, and station a catapult there. If the AI declares war on me I have an essentially impregnable spot to rack up xp for my future artillery armies.

 

[agonistes]

I build a few catapults usually so that I've got some ready to go to upgrade to artillery. They're also nice in border cities which are close to AI cities - I like to plop an encampment within 2 tiles of an enemy city, and station a catapult there. If the AI declares war on me I have an essentially impregnable spot to rack up xp for my future artillery armies.

Ditto. I love arti in encampments.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think the siege mechanics would be much better if your tools were obsoleted by each successive level of walls. For example, whatever is after ancient walls obsoletes the battering ram, whatever is after that absolutes the siege tower, whatever is after that is hard to break down by catapults, and so on. Doing that would make it worthwhile to build later forms of walls, while pushing back against the oddity that is battering rams being useful in the industrial or later eras.

With regard to range scaling, I think it all makes more sense if you consider it based solely on what units should be having as range compared to their contemporaries. Archers would have notably better range than swordsman, machine guns designed for distance fire would have better range (in part due to volume) than infantry, and so on. That said, it does look ridiculous when comparing different era units to one another. There's no reason the rifles of an infantry unit shouldn't be able to hit some archers from the same distance. I'm not sure there is a good way to balance across generations of technology that doesn't notably imbalance combat.

My personal preference for quick re-balances to address these issues:

1. Have Battering Rams / Catapults be effective only against Ancient Walls, have Sappers (Battering Ram upgrade) / Trebuchets (Catapult upgrade) be effective only against Ancient or Medieval Walls, have Military Engineers / Cannon be effective against all walls (but not cities post Steel), have Bombers / Artillery be effective against any city.

2. Make the entire Ranged line consistent with Slingers and Machine Guns, i.e. range 1. But also allow Ranged units to take a free ranged attack against the first Melee unit to attack them each turn. Then when Archers, etc. advance up to your lines, you either have to charge them (taking casualities and leaving you vulnerable to counter attack) or pull back (breaking your line) or sit there and be attritioned (possibly softening you up for a subsequent charge). This would better reflect the actual use of ranged units on the battlefield and be easier for the AI to handle.

3. Give Siege units a bonus when defending against ranged attacks. Keep them vulnerable to melee attacks, but make them very difficult to kill at a distance.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The AI needs to make a better effort to defend their cities, they can't defend their cities properly at present.

True, but not a reasonable basis to gut units.

Rams are only meaningful in the context of a city surrounded by 3+ military units without support from contemporary troops, or when city defenses are lagging way behind attacker melee strength. In both of these contexts, it's reasonable that the city should fall; the defender has a large advantage in this game. If the attacker nevertheless accomplished one of these things they either significantly out-invested the defender or killed defender's army. Defender lost the war or a farmer's gambit and deserves to lose the city.

I never understood why rams/siege towers affect ALL melee units by the city, and not just the unit stacked with them.

For the reasons I highlight above. Defender letting 3+ melee border a city choked or lost already. Anything less than 3 and proposed rule wouldn't matter because you could just move the ram.

It's true that the siege line is something of a joke before artillery though, there should definitely be incentive to actually use units and right now catapults/bombards don't do enough to merit use.

 

[Heathcliff]

Hopefully citystates will start with ancient walls now. It is too easy and effcient to start with 3 slingers and upgrade to archers and take a city state now

 

[Cuneiform]

I've spotted from the Canada Live-stream that Medieval & Renaissance Walls each provide +100 to Outer defence as well.

However, there are also parts which show that the Melee strength of some units has been increased over basic Civ6.

There's obviously a re-balancing going on here, possibly to allow for a more complete unit roster. But maybe also to provide scope for Strategic Resource dependant units to start with a higher strength value, which will be reduced if the resource is in short supply.

 

[AriochIV]

It seems kind of dumb to make all walls have the same defense value. There was little reason to upgrade them before, and none now, unless you're interested in the future tourism value... which is a stupid reason to build walls. Strange change.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It seems kind of dumb to make all walls have the same defense value. There was little reason to upgrade them before, and none now, unless you're interested in the future tourism value... which is a stupid reason to build walls. Strange change.

I read it as +100 more than the previous walls, but I realize now it didn't actually say that. I just assumed that is what it meant, as it seemed logical to me.

If my interpretation (as opposed to the actual wording) is correct, them effectively walls in the current build are twice as strong as in R&F. Possibly there are other changes related to walls or siege engines or otherwise that we haven't seen yet that render 100 wall strength in GS the same as 100 wall strength in R&F.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

Currently,

• Ancient Walls +50 Outer Defense (50 Total HP)
• Medieval Walls +50 Outer Defense (100 Total HP)
• Renaissance Walls +50 Outer Defense (150 Total HP)
• Urban Defense 200 HP (All walls obsolete, but basically Renaissance Walls + another 50.)

The terminology on the tooltips is still the same as the base game - "+XX Outer Defense" - so I'm sure it's still a cumulative effect. The only difference is the doubling of the values to +100.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Currently,

• Ancient Walls +50 Outer Defense (50 Total HP)
• Medieval Walls +50 Outer Defense (100 Total HP)
• Renaissance Walls +50 Outer Defense (150 Total HP)
• Urban Defense 200 HP (All walls obsolete, but basically Renaissance Walls + another 50.)

The terminology on the tooltips is still the same as the base game - "+XX Outer Defense" - so I'm sure it's still a cumulative effect. The only difference is the doubling of the values to +100.

Now:

• Ancient Walls +50 Outer Defense (50 Total HP),+2 City Strength(2 Total Strength)
• Medieval Walls +50 Outer Defense (100 Total HP),+2 City Strength(4 Total Strength)
• Renaissance Walls +50 Outer Defense (150 Total HP)+2 City Strength(6 Total Strength)
• Urban Defense 200 HP (All walls obsolete, but basically Renaissance Walls + another 50, 0 Total Strength, Immune to Rams and Towers)

In GS:

• Ancient Walls +100 Outer Defense (100 Total HP),+3 City Strength(3 Total Strength)
• Medieval Walls +100 Outer Defense (200 Total HP),+3 City Strength(6 Total Strength)
• Renaissance Walls +100 Outer Defense (300 Total HP)+3 City Strength(9 Total Strength)
• Urban Defense 200 HP (All walls obsolete, outer defense as strong as Medieval Walls, 0 Total Strength, Immune to Rams and Towers)

 

[Laurana Kanan]

@Lily_Lancer - Yes, you are correct on the full stats. I was only highlighting that the Outer Defense mechanic still appears to be cumulative, not as an equivalent replacement as suggested above.

I haven't finished the livestream, but do we know that Urban Defense is still only 200 HP? If so, I can't see a real compelling reason to build past Ancient Walls (not that there is now in an unmodded game), other than a rather temporary boost to defense.

 

[Siptah]

If so, I can't see a real compelling reason to build past Ancient Walls (not that there is now in an unmodded game), other than a rather temporary boost to defense.

Tourism, more CS, and housing from Monarchy. Compelling reasons? No.