Attacking city wall

[V. Soma]

How does it go?

quill18 here says that:

You can attack a city wall with melee unit if a battering ram is adjacent to the city,
AND
then you can attack the city wall on any tile that is next to the city, not only on the tile the ram is on...

Will it be really so? If yes, I don't really like it - I'd say you should be able to attack the wall only from the tile where the supporting batterinf ram is.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think it's fine. It may not reflect historical accuracy, but it sounds like it makes the game more fun.

 

[Magil]

Sounds like an issue of game balance/fun factor over "realism". It'd be pretty annoying to need a battering ram on every tile with a melee unit on it for that unit to attack the city (not to mention yet another factor favoring ranged units over melee).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sounds like an issue of game balance/fun factor over "realism". It'd be pretty annoying to need a battering ram on every tile with a melee unit on it for that unit to attack the city (not to mention yet another factor favoring ranged units over melee).

One note: we don't know what ranged units need to attack city walls. (I could see archery type ranged units not allowed to attack city walls)

 

[Magil]

One note: we don't know what ranged units need to attack city walls. (I could see archery type ranged units not allowed to attack city walls)

Nah, I've seen archers attacking a walled city just fine in the videos. I didn't really take notice of the damage they did, though.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It makes walls pretty valuable.

 

[V. Soma]

I think it's fine. It may not reflect historical accuracy, but it sounds like it makes the game more fun.

I would make so - as a compromise - that your melee unit has to be at least adjacent to the ram to be able to attack the city...

Just imagine that the ram is on the other (opposite) side of the city - that would not be OK for me...

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The defender can focus fire on the battering ram, if they destroy it the siege may have to be aborted. 2 Rams are more safe play.

 

[plasmacannon]

I think the problem is, that to do it correctly the way you want it to, the city wall would have to have separate hit points per side and display the progress of each battering ram has had on that side of the wall.
For 6 sides, this would create a lot of clutter.
You're right, it is more accurate and more complex, but I don't think that is what they are going for.
You may have just found a good point for modders to add to their version though.

 

[Brutus2]

I've heard there is also a siege tower unit that allows your units to completely bypass the walls and attack the city directly. That seems a little overpowered.

 

[rastak]

I would make so - as a compromise - that your melee unit has to be at least adjacent to the ram to be able to attack the city...

Just imagine that the ram is on the other (opposite) side of the city - that would not be OK for me...

It's abstracted.

It's hard enough as is, I very much like this new mechanic.

 

[JimmyBanks]

I like the concept. It will be fun to play. Build walls or die.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I wonder if the ai will ever be able to take cities with those walls.

 

[Jaybe]

Once the ram/siege tower makes a breach in the wall, the primary assault follows through.
While that happens, defenders are gathering at the breach, vastly reducing wall defenders elsewhere.

Other attackers are then free to (safely) scale the walls -OR- follow the lead assault force through the wall breach.

--

In some time periods (15-1600's for instance), just breaching the walls was all that was necessary for the city to surrender, at which point FAILING to surrender would result in the city being sacked (i.e., loot, rape, murder & burn the whole city), ugly stuff.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I've heard there is also a siege tower unit that allows your units to completely bypass the walls and attack the city directly. That seems a little overpowered.

Perhaps that one only applies to the unit it is paired with.

 

[Magil]

I've heard there is also a siege tower unit that allows your units to completely bypass the walls and attack the city directly. That seems a little overpowered.

This isn't all that overpowered when you consider that it's likely, given they're referred to as "ancient walls" and "medieval walls", once gunpowder is reached all post-gunpowder units will likely ignore walls completely.

 

[plasmacannon]

This isn't all that overpowered when you consider that it's likely, given they're referred to as "ancient walls" and "medieval walls", once gunpowder is reached all post-gunpowder units will likely ignore walls completely.

True. They usually do.

 

[Brutus2]

This isn't all that overpowered when you consider that it's likely, given they're referred to as "ancient walls" and "medieval walls", once gunpowder is reached all post-gunpowder units will likely ignore walls completely.

Right, but the siege tower is giving all your pre-gunpowder units the ability to ignore walls? That makes walls obsolete long before gunpowder units appear. It does make sense that siege towers would let you get over the walls easily but if you only need one for all your units to ignore the walls that seems overpowered to me.

Also, simply being a gunpowder unit shouldn't let you ignore walls completely. I can understand cannons or catapults taking the walls down quickly but a group of musketmen shooting through the walls doesn't make much sense. If so, the Alamo would have been a much shorter battle

 

[jtakau]

Right, but the siege tower is giving all your pre-gunpowder units the ability to ignore walls? That makes walls obsolete long before gunpowder units appear. It does make sense that siege towers would let you get over the walls easily but if you only need one for all your units to ignore the walls that seems overpowered to me.

Also, simply being a gunpowder unit shouldn't let you ignore walls completely. I can understand cannons or catapults taking the walls down quickly but a group of musketmen shooting through the walls doesn't make much sense. If so, the Alamo would have been a much shorter battle

I suspect that a siege tower will ne show and fragile. Of IT takes for example a round to set up, you would have to take the city defense down first or have the capacity to throw several towers against the city.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I suspect that a siege tower will ne show and fragile. Of IT takes for example a round to set up, you would have to take the city defense down first or have the capacity to throw several towers against the city.

It's probably a support unit... which means it will be stacked with a melee unit to defend.

But it might only benefit the unit stacked with it (and it could require a round to set up as well.)