City walls...

[amadeus]

Was anyone ever concerned about the fact you could be getting future technology in Civilization II, but if you didn't have city walls, that your population would decrease if you failed to defend your city with that unit.

Doesn't that seem kinda dumb after a while? Realistically, how many cities after the year 1990 had walls around them? None. Just the Berlin Wall that fell a year earlier, and the Great Wall of China, which is now a tourist attraction.

Shouldn't there be a tech that makes city walls obsolete? I'd say Democracy, Amphibious Warfare, or Mobile Warfare.

 

[CurtSibling]

I imagine the modern artillery units will ignore city walls anyhow! Same wif tanks...

 

[BusterBunny]

Quebec City still has a wall surrounding the ols part of the city, as does Luxembourg city I think.

 

[amadeus]

So Quebec and Luxembourg...

That's uh...two...

 

[DaEezT]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Shouldn't there be a tech that makes city walls obsolete?

I would say sewer systems.
sewer is needed for big cities, cities that'll grow in the future and thus a city wall would have to be "moved" in order to protect the growing city.

I would say either that tech or, maybe even better, when the city reaches a certain size at which it wouldn't make any sense to build a wall around it.

 

[amadeus]

I was thinking something along the lines of "border patrols" would be in order.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I think now a lot more battles are going to take place away from your cities. You'll need to defend your entire territory esp your strategic and luxury resource sqs.
Anyway street-to-street fighting during attking and occupation of cities have always been pretty tough (e.g. Leningrad and Stalingrad during WW2) so a wall improvement that inc the defense of units defending the city sq makes sense. Maybe it shld be rebuild as something else in more modern times.

 

[joukov]

yeah the quebec city got walls..... but they are useless against attack (attack quebec city :crazyeyes ) the city spread farfar away from the walls and there breach at many points so its became like the great wall of china a tourist attraction....

 

[jc011]

if the walls become obsolete, then citizens will die if attacked. There should be an advanced tech that allows a stronger wall, that may be destroyed if attacked too many times

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Originally posted by joukov
yeah the quebec city got walls..... but they are useless against attack (attack quebec city :crazyeyes ) the city spread farfar away from the walls and there breach at many points so its became like the great wall of china a tourist attraction....

Hey, you never know what the Newfies are going to try next Yeah, you heard me Cornmaster

Walls ought to provide a more limited defensive bonus in modern times. And as it was said, most of your fighting is now going to be done in territorial protection, not city protection. Resources and roads need to be guarded, not the cities that use them (to the same degree at least )

 

[Sukenis]

In SMAC they just call it a parimiter defense and later a tacenon (sp) field. I think in the modern days the city wall reflect a basic fortification around the city. Be it trenchs or whatnot. On the same not how many modern cities have aquaducts? We now have water towers, wells, ans such. How many cities have temples (peagan temples that is). Here in american they are not that common.

The strucfturs just reflect otehr things in the modern time.

I do think that certian military advances should make wall obsolete like they do barrakcs. A city defense aimed at stopping a swordsmen will not stopp a musetter. A defense aim at stopping a musetter will not stop a tank either.

 

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by Sukenis
In SMAC they just call it a parimiter defense and later a tacenon (sp) field. I think in the modern days the city wall reflect a basic fortification around the city. Be it trenchs or whatnot. On the same not how many modern cities have aquaducts? We now have water towers, wells, ans such. How many cities have temples (peagan temples that is). Here in american they are not that common.

Why do you assume that "temple" means "pagan temple"? For crying out loud, here in the US of A there's a darn church on every other street corner. You can't spit for fear of hitting holy ground.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I agree with Sukenis,

I think city fortifications should work similarly to barracks. We all know that when you research a certain tech, your barracks becomes obsolete, gets sold, and must be rebuilt. This would accommodate the changing tactics of defense as tech increases, for example:

wood/earth walls -> stone walls -> trenches & bunkers

 

[Robespierre]

City walls were never anything that took a long time to construct, anyway. Several years seems like a long time, but not in Civilization terms. Things like building a library or a temple can be symbolic of a gradual development of organized religion or literacy and knowledge in the city, but not city walls.

I say that City Walls should be removed from the game completely. Having a fortified military unit in a city is symbolic enough of having constructed city walls.

 

[LKendter]

Robespierre,

Well you are consitent. Anything to make the game more difficult from a military standpoint! I can imagine how large a force would be required to protect cities without walls.

Sorry,

but I **LIKE** city walls

 

[The Last Conformist]

If city walls were abolished, then cities in themselves ought to give a defense bonus instead - both gameplay and realism would suffer badly if defending a major city was no easier than defending an stretch of open steppe.

I'd prefer a two-tiered system a la SMAC. City walls that provides a certain defense bonus, a later researchable more modern defensive improvement (called, say "Trenchworks"), which improves this bonus. City walls, but not Trenchworks, should be possible to destroy by artillery.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Quote from Robespierre:

Having a fortified military unit in a city is symbolic enough of having constructed city walls.

I disagree totally. "City walls" or "city fortifications" are completely independent of whether there is a unit inside. Historically, look at the city walls of Constantinople and Jerusalem. If noone had been home, invaders could have marched right in and taken the walls, and then used them in defense. I think city fortifications are great, they just need some tweaking to get it perfect.

 

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by Robespierre
City walls were never anything that took a long time to construct, anyway. Several years seems like a long time, but not in Civilization terms. Things like building a library or a temple can be symbolic of a gradual development of organized religion or literacy and knowledge in the city, but not city walls.

I say that City Walls should be removed from the game completely. Having a fortified military unit in a city is symbolic enough of having constructed city walls.

Well, in one of the recent editor shots (I believe the one in the Dev update), it shows defensive bonuses for certain sizes of cities. I think it defaults to 0% for <6, 50% for 6->12 and 100% for 13+, though that might be govt specific.

It's something along your lines though.

 

[Mozenwrath]

Ummmm....
Pardon me, but shouldn't this thread be in the civ3 suggestions forum?

 

[Graeme the mad]

City walls rock:I think in modern times they just represent other defenses in a city such as trenches (however it would be nice if they were renamed as such after a certain tech say machine gun, though I know this aint going to happen - OKAY?)