City Defense vs. Gunpowder Units

I'm currently working on balancing Super Forts for HR (Windows only, sorry) and this has got me thinking about how gunpowder-based units are able to ignore city defense and whether this should be adjusted. Historically, it makes sense that Walls/Castles/etc become ineffective against Bombards/Cannons/etc, but Muskets? From a gameplay point of view, maybe it would be good to have defence infrastructure be relevant for a bit longer, at least through the Renaissance Era. Especially since much of it only becomes available just one era earlier.

Anyway, I'm pondering whether to remove the ability to ignore building defenses from the Musketman and the Cuirassier and would like to hear people's thoughts on this idea. In particular:

• Would this make the Musketman too weak? Would it need to be strengthened or given a different bonus to compensate?

• Does it make sense to extend this to Riflemen and Cavalry too? It's always been strange to me that Walls/Castles/etc aren't effective against people on horses just because they have guns. Might create a more defined niche for the Grenadier, which definitely should retain the ability to ignore defense.

• Or would this just serve to make Siege Units even more important than they already are, for longer, for no real benefit?

Note that the 'ignore defence' setting is a simple boolean toggle – a unit either ignores all building defenses or none. I cannot make different upgrades or tiers of Walls/Castles/etc that protect against some units but not others, unfortunately.

 

I think, fortification like walls and castles definitely don't immediately become useless just because enemy is using gunpowder-based weaponry. Well, except maybe versus tanks and cannons, which can just blast through of shoot over walls. Problem is, modern cities are large and don't have explicit boundaries. Castle is just too small to protect anything except it's immediate area, and encircling entire modern city with wall secure enough to protect against anything is not very realistic. On another hand, military bases are small and definitely should be able to be fortified. So, how about making only tanks and cannons ignore walls/castles/forts, but use python code to somehow make fortification useless and unbuildable when city hits certain size threshold (or, maybe, gradually reduce defense bonus as city grows)?

Btw, i feel it is kinda strange anyway, that you are forced to build walls and castle to provide expirience for modern artillery.

Edit: on a second thought, that might be overcomplicated.

 

The easiest way to do that is to make them go obsolete like in regular BTS, but then all the other bonuses attached to them go obsolete as well. I could move said bonuses elsewhere but buildings that only provide defense aren't a particularly interesting choice or worth the hammers in many cases. Especially when they'll go obsolete eventually.

This is a bit strange, yeah. The obvious way to resolve it is to split Siege Units into 2 seperate categories (e.g. Siege and Artillery) and have the later category get its bonus elsewhere. I'd have to consider the wider implications of that though.

 

I think walls and castle will not lost the bonuses. Because fortification is not just walls, its evolve and connect all tech and stuff to boost defense, you can think about it as bunkers to. (Landmines, Cameras, traps, barricades) "The more city is destroyed, the more is easy to defend it." (WW2)

If something shall ignore city defense then its shall be artillery, attack choppers, rockets (like AA, AT infantry, katusha), battleships, mortars (non exists)

But how about different approach? Promotion fortify specialist or (Bunker) to ignore a portion of fortification. There is possibility that it will dint like the the city raider promotion and cause trouble to city defend.

Bunker I: on offense Reduce (ignore) passive (walls bonus) fortification by 20
Bunker II: on offense Additionally Reduce (ignore) passive and active (walls bonus) fortification by 10
Bunker III: on offense Additionally Reduce (ignore) passive and active (walls bonus) fortification by 10 or reduce field defense by 50 (forest, hills),

Or maybe just on offense ignore (I: 20, II: 40, III 60) (points / percentage) of enemy (defense bonus / fortification).
-This on will probably cause a lot of mess.

So no guns units shall not ignore walls, and castles. they shall have access to promotions and become specialist against fortified positions. But how to ballance this trait is something else.

Edit:
so this can be used for tactic trait to exchange upgrade bonus for giving it this to melee and gun units.

 

It's a good idea but not something I can implement due to technical limitations.

 

As it is, even after bombards become available, it takes a while for them to be built or older units to be upgraded.
Thus usually Castles lose their effectiveness gradually rather than all at once.

(It is rare for a stack of muskets to attack a city with a Castle prior to reducing its defenses via bombardment.)

So while it is a good idea to somehow make Castles useful on defense for a bit longer, I do not think it is necessary.
Bottom line, nobody is forced to build Castles.
While I do not think a change is necessary, perhaps you could reduce the number of hammers slightly, and leave it at that.

P.S. Is there some way to make Castles available somewhat sooner?

 

Having been an infantry man, ruined walls, castles, buildings, etc provide EXCELLENT defense for modern units. Just ask the Germans at Stalingrad and during the battles of Kiev and Kharkov in WWII. Expand the walls/castles defense to infantry but not to artillery (tanks should be limited attacking into cities - they were at a severe disadvantage in Cities).