[vanilla] Do you build walls?

[MuteWolf]

Does anyone build walls? I have yet to find a situation when building a wall seemed like a good idea. Even if I need some city defense I would rather build a unit than a wall. Has anyone found a reason to build one?

 

[elthrasher]

Does anyone build walls? I have yet to find a situation when building a wall seemed like a good idea. Even if I need some city defense I would rather build a unit than a wall. Has anyone found a reason to build one?

I don't think I've found building a wall useful in any civ game ever, heh. I always prefer the extra unit or something else, yeah. It seems like they could maybe be useful in this game, but I haven't tried. Generally I try to play games where I'm the one attacking cities, not the other way around. Walls just seem kind of defeatist.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't think I've found building a wall useful in any civ game ever, heh. I always prefer the extra unit or something else, yeah. It seems like they could maybe be useful in this game, but I haven't tried. Generally I try to play games where I'm the one attacking cities, not the other way around. Walls just seem kind of defeatist.

Before they broke overflow in civ IV patch 3.19 (rather than fixing still-broken controls ), building walls for the gold was very powerful, even more so with protective.

In civ V, they're one of the few structures puppets build that have any military value at all so not completely terrible. Also, if you have a lot of gold you can buy walls AND a unit as an emergency measure.

 

[Salarakas]

I don't think I've found building a wall useful in any civ game ever, heh.

I guess you've never played an always war game in Civ3. There walls could really be a life saver on the higher difficulty levels.

But yeah, in most cases walls are pretty pointless in Civ5 like they were in Civ4 as well.

 

[Seneijashuu]

Well playing on emperor level as chinese, surrounded by england, persia and sion, who ultimately launches a 3 prong attack on your cities.. i must say the walls proved handy (2000 b.c.)

and if you are trying to be defensive scientisting away highly defensive cities can really help as their melee units simply die b4 they can take over it helps with some ranged garrisoned.

no walls, imo, are quite usefull if, say, you are surrounded by 3 warloving npc´s

(in this game, i beat back england and sion´s units forcing them to peace me out, persia took 1 city wich i recaptured the next turn, going for his cities, making him surrender all his gold, 2 cities and his luxuries , playing defensively works 2 )

 

[elthrasher]

I guess you've never played an always war game in Civ3. There walls could really be a life saver on the higher difficulty levels.

But yeah, in most cases walls are pretty pointless in Civ5 like they were in Civ4 as well.

You could've also guessed that I just didn't play Civ3 very well, but you're right, I have never played that one. I don't mind my puppets building walls because I don't believe in wasting units on garrisons and it seems like a wall might buy me time to bring my CoD in to repel invaders, but I have yet to see it become useful in this game.

 

[firecat318]

I will build them if I'm doing a OCC or if I have a city that is on the very frontier of my empire. In the early game +5 defense is huge, it prevents swordsman and spearman from easily taking your cities. In the later game I'll just delete them to save the small upkeep. When i'm doing OCC, I will also build the Castle and the other one that gives +12 defense. Sometimes I can get cities with over 100 defense, which can usually one hit rifleman and infantry.

 

[Lyoncet]

They're not as bad as they were in Civ IV for a few reasons. In Civ IV, if you were fighting in your own territory (or worse, if your cities were being attacked), that usually meant something was very, very wrong/you were about to lose. As it is now, on higher difficulty levels, you almost have to do the bulk of your fighting near your cities because of the absurd number of units the AI will throw at you. The healing bonus along with city bombardment and garrisoned artillery units (and any defense-oriented wonders you may have) make fighting around your cities really pretty smart. Also, boosting your cities' strength means you can inflict more damage on bombardment I believe.

That said, they're still not all that great. But there are some times when they're pretty handy. I've played a few culture/diplo wins where I forbade myself to capture cities or built many units and just held out with Kremlin, Himeji Castle, and all the defensive structures I could get my hands on. It actually proved really effective with just a few longswords/rifles/infantry fortified in front. Held off Napoleon, Suleiman, Wu, and the Suleiman again that way in one game on Emperor as Darius. Immortals promoted to Mech Infantry didn't hurt I suppose.

 

[Rathelon]

I build 'em because they look cool.

 

[Pantastic]

They don't seem to do enough to warrant a maintenance cost to me. If I have units defending a city, they keep the enemy from doing more than occasionally poking at the wall, and if I don't walls won't stop my city from getting taken by an attack. If they didn't take long to build and cost money to maintain they'd be different, but as it is they don't impress me at all.

In Civ4 I liked them a lot since they were cheap to build (especially with stone and/or protective) maintenance free and boosted your power score, and a castle with just a few units would stop anything short of a completely crazy stack of doom, since the AI would stop to reduce the bonus with just a handful of siege units. If I was playing straight 'win ASAP' style I probably wouldn't have used them, but constant warring without pause isn't really the strength of a civ game IMO.

 

[MuteWolf]

I guess I could see buying a wall if you were really in a pinch, to hold off attackers while your army travels in, but it still seems like there are better things to do with my hammers and gold. In Civ IV I did occasionally build a wall in a frontier city and if I found myself surrounded by aggressors in Civ V perhaps I should try it. I just haven't been in any position that seemed like the trade off was worth it.

 

[Slowpoke]

In vanilla, no (except in OCC games).

With aforess improved city defense, Thals balance-combined, or my mod, you bet.

 

[stormerne]

Walls = +5 defense, +Castle = +12.5, +Military Base = +24.5, +Kremlin = +36.75. (+39 for India.)

That's what the manual says, but I've never built them all and measured it (except as a noob, and I forget now). If you're feeling very insecure but rich, or in an emergency, you can buy the first three, and if you're on the receiving end of a massive simultaneous attack, they may help - or more likely it will be too late. Otherwise cities heal far too fast anyway, and will heal even faster after the next patch.

Maybe - and I seek advice from others here - they're more useful in MP games than SP. (?)

The defensive bonuses all add up, but I can't help feeling (OCC excepted) that if you're relying on these habitually, there's something else wrong with your strategy elsewhere. And if purchasing is your route, remember that a horseman is cheaper than buying walls!

 

[Buccaneer]

Never have built walls in any SP civ game. If you are letting the AI attack your cities, then you aren't doing it right. Take out aggressive neighbors early and often to give you the defensive buffer.

 

[Lyoncet]

Never have built walls in any SP civ game. If you are letting the AI attack your cities, then you aren't doing it right. Take out aggressive neighbors early and often to give you the defensive buffer.

You don't have to let them attack your cities to get the benefit of defensive structures if I recall correctly. In fact, you should be doing a lot of your fighting within city bombardment range.

 

[the343danny]

You guys should try the Active City Defense mod by Afforess. All defense structures have higher defense values and and castles and above have special bonuses (ie castles take out 1 hp of adjacent units per turn).

In my current game only thing that kept me in the game after an Immortal level (with the Balance mod and Econ mod which both increase production) Aztec jaguar attack was that I rush built a wall. Granted, I was Babylon, but rush buying another bowmen wouldve just killed me because I had to be adjacent to a unit to attack him (forests all around city) and its pretty much death if you try to put archers up against Jaguars in a forest.

 

[pi-r8]

I've found them marginally effective whenever I have a city that's in an obvious war zone. Not very effective though- much better to rely on letting them take the city, and trapping their units inside.

 

[Lyoncet]

I've found them marginally effective whenever I have a city that's in an obvious war zone. Not very effective though- much better to rely on letting them take the city, and trapping their units inside.

Doesn't that destroy 2/3rds of the buildings in the city and give you a big hit to population? I mean, yeah you can take out enemy units that way (until the likely fix), but that seems kind of extreme.

 

[Slowpoke]

I believe when he means warzone, he took the city and let them retake it. Conquered cities are already mucked up, so letting them reconquer isn't a huge loss.

 

[pi-r8]

I've done that with cities that I built myself, too. If it's a city on the outer edge of my empire, then it's not going to be a city with much in it. And it's much better to ruin one city, instead of losing the whole war. Think of it this way- a settler costs about as much as city walls, but it makes a much more effective defense.