Great Wall still bugged?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Bug Reports' started by Malachi256, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. Malachi256

    Malachi256 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    539
    I'm invading with battleships and a couple infantry... I'm obviously way past dynamite... and yet I'm still having to slog one hex at a time with the infantry.

    It looks like he might not have dynamite yet (still using cannons), but seriously, that can't be it.

    What's up?
     
  2. JamesCivFan

    JamesCivFan King

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    604
    Location:
    Greece
    It's what you said exactly. If the owner of the Great Wall hasn't researched Dynamite yet, it will not become obsolete. I don't think it's a bug. It's a feature.
     
  3. MaximusK

    MaximusK Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Aim for a puppet beside the cap that built great wall, then use some culture bombing GG to get close. Of course sometimes the civs that build the Great Wall don't build many cities.

    And as the other person said, it's the civ that built the great wall that needs to research dynamite.
     
  4. Chieron

    Chieron Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    Mecklenburg, Germany
    It's the owner missing Dynamite, not you. This is probably a feature, though an utterly stupid one (for the Great Wall obsolescence/effect, the invader's tech should count, not the defender's, just my 2 cent. A mediaeval civ should slow down even after someone researched Dynamite, maybe even all units before the Industrial Age)
     
  5. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    If you want to make it somewhat accurate, instead of slowing all movement inside the empire which built it, it should temporarily stop movement right at the border. Basically have the Great Wall create an unbridged river completely encircling the civ.

    And it shouldn't obsolete at all. A 20' tall, 15' thick stone wall is gonna wreak havoc with any invader...if anything, it would slow a modern mechanized force down even more than it would an ancient army of foot soldiers.
     
  6. Putmalk

    Putmalk Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    2,623
    Location:
    New York
    What is this I don't even...

    The Great Wall would get smashed by artillery, tanks, and planes faster than you can sneeze. We have bunker busters, for pete's sake....
     
  7. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    Tanks and APCs wouldn't do too well in the ensuing rubble field.

    But yes, once your engineers cleared the way, they'd roll right through...which is basically what I was suggesting should happen in the game.
     
  8. Pax_Romanus

    Pax_Romanus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    85
    After a while, shoddily built ancient walls do get some pretty sizable holes in them... which get wider when you blast it with dynamite or artillery. Foot soldiers had to besiege the wall, which had archers, boiling oil, etc on top of it. Today, we get past walls using this simple method: point, shoot, boom. Or, set charge, detonate charge. Not knocking your opinion, just backing up the point of obsoletion.

    Back on topic, dynamite should AT LEAST allow 2 moves inside those borders for invading civs when they discover it.

    Edit: Tanks are designed to handle going over rubble, otherwise they'd be useless in urban combat. Bigger rubble means a little more maneuvering, that's all. And again, the real Great Wall has huge holes in it from enduring all those centuries (short version here, not gonna go into the whole construction thing here), with some gaps being miles wide.
     
  9. Scars n Stripes

    Scars n Stripes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2011
    Messages:
    36

    I'd have to agree here a bit. I think everyone is being a bit too critical about the argument. There's no way a tank is going to simply drive over gigantic "rubble" that would fall from blasting your way through the great wall. That rock isn't going to just vaporize... I suppose it depends on the amount of explosives that were used, but it would certainly produce lots of choke points that an army would need to move through that would hinder even modern movement.

    I think he's only trying to say that it is an obstacle that would require a bit of extra time to work around. I doubt you'd hear any modern generals say that a huge wall surrounding a civilization you're planning to invade isn't an impediment to worry about.
     
  10. tf21

    tf21 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    Messages:
    14
    Saadam Hussein built gigantic sand berms and thick minefields to impede the 5th and 7th corps in 1991 and it was just a speed bump. He could have built a 20'tall 15 thick stone wall and would have hardly made a difference.

    The fact that the Great Wall was a known obstacle that existed for a long time would have given any potential attacker plenty of time to study the problem and figure out a solution.

    Gunpowder and explosives ended the reign of stone walls.

    The Germans outflanked the Magiont Line, the Egyptians figured out how to breach the Bar Lev line in 73 and quickly move large formations of armored and infantry through it as did the Western forces in 1991 in Kuwait when faced with a long wall. Stone walls or not. Once breached attackers will just use tanks with bulldozer blades to clear paths through which follow up forces will pass through rapidly.
     
  11. Harv72b

    Harv72b Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    552
    This is way off topic & I'm sorry I even brought the matter up.

    The difference between sand and stone should be fairly obvious; Coalition forces flanked around the more heavily defended obstacles for the most part (as Hussein didn't anticipate large armored columns being able to navigate the desert), and in spots where we did opt to breach, the Iraqi defenders put up little or no effort to make it difficult. You pointed out yourself that the Germans outflanked the Maginot line, and a huge part of the Egyptian's success at the Suez involved an overconfident & outmanned Israeli defensive force and the innovate use of high-pressure water cannons to crumble the mostly earthen walls. Point being that none of the tactics used in those examples would work in the case of a huge stone wall completely surrounding a nation's land borders (you could of course stage an amphibious landing).

    The plain and simple fact of the matter is that large, armored vehicles do not like rubble. You can't really drive over it, and attempting to navigate through/around it against a determined enemy will result in much slower progress and a much higher casualty rate; this has been the issue with urban warfare since WWII and remains so to this day. I'm not saying a few archers could stop a tank column, wall or no wall, but I am saying that the tank column would have to stop while engineers demolished and then cleared said wall. Sand berms disintegrate when faced with large amounts of high explosives--solid stone walls do not.

    FWIW, I did spend a bit of time driving an APC a few years back. I used to think that concertina wire was the stupidest obstacle ever, until I saw what happened when a bunch of it gets wrapped around the axle of a HMMWV. ;)

    Okay, back to discussing Civ. I'll gladly carry this on via private message if anyone really wants to. :)
     
  12. rakun666

    rakun666 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    9
    The great wall should be just like a river, you lose your movement when you cross it and that is it. Maybe some defense for units behind it.
     
  13. Grubsnik

    Grubsnik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    69
    Quick mention, the Great wall was never meant to keep anyone out. The length of it alone made the prospect of manning and defending it a hopeless endeavour. The purpose of it was to slow down raiders trying to get away after having raided the northern provinces. If you don't get to keep what you steal, perhaps you won't be so keen on stealing it in the first place.

    All that being said, it would make more sense if industrial or later units just weren't affected by it. It is, afaik the only wonder that still becomes obsolete in Civ5
     
  14. isau

    isau Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    3,071
    I think it's fine as is. The buildings/wonders in Civ give bonuses that are just impressions of what those structures might give. And skipping Dynamite means going without Artillery.
     
  15. CiVAnthony

    CiVAnthony Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    15
    Here's an idea, the Great Wall completely impedes movement into the empire until a unit can destroy a section of the wall (3 hits trebuchet, 2 hits cannon?).
     
  16. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Agreed in that they're going for gameplay influenced by history, not realism. Still seems iffy how it obsoletes.
     

Share This Page