Jazzmail
King
8 trebuchets can do it.
I think walls and castles were poorly implemented in civ4
- Thread starter futurehermit
- Start date
Jazzmail
King
Let's give it a try.
Each treb does -16 defense. Now we bring 8 trebs for bombardment (followed by 8 suicide attacks). 1 turn does 8*-16 = -128 defense.
This first example is a city with no cultural defense bonus:
1. Wall = 50 defense. Also -50% bombardment, so 0.5 * -128 = -64.
The wall cost the attacker 1 extra turn.
2. Then add a castle. 50+50=100 defense. -75% bombardment, so 0.25 * 3 turns * -128 = -96. 100-96=4. Close enough I reckon.
Total for both = 3 turns = 1 (wall) + 2(castle).
Second example. Now a 20% cultural defense bonus:
1. first only culture: attacker loses 1 turn, actually 20/128 = 0.16
2. then add a wall: x turns = (20+50)/(0.5*128)=70/64 = 1.1
3. add a castle: x turns = (20+50+50)/(0.25*128)=120/32 = 3.75
Total(20%) = 3.75 = 0.16 (culture) + 1.04 (wall) + 2.71 (castle)
3rd example. 40% culture:
1. culture: 40/128 = 0.32
2. +walls: (40+50)/(0.5*128)=90/64 = 1.41
3. +castle: (40+50+50)/(0.25*128)=140/32 = 4.38
Total(40%) = 4.38 = 0.32 (culture) + 1.09 (wall) + 3.29 (castle)
4th example. 60% culture:
1. culture: 60/128 = 0.47
2. +walls: (60+50)/(0.5*128)=110/64 = 1.72
3. +castle: (60+50+50)/(0.25*128)=160/32 = 5.00
Total(60%) = 5.00 = 0.47 (culture) + 1.25 (wall) + 3.75 (castle)
5th example. 80% culture:
1. culture: 80/128 = 0.63
2. +walls: (80+50)/(0.5*128)=130/64 = 2.03
3. +castle: (80+50+50)/(0.25*128)=180/32 = 5.63
Total(80%) = 5.63 = 0.63 (culture) + 1.40 (wall) + 4.23 (castle)
Conclusion: against 8 trebs, building a wall only buys you about one turn (0.78 to 1.40).
If you then also build a castle, the castle helps you for about 2 to 4 turns, depending on culture.
So the walls by themselves are rubbish by the time the enemy has trebs (even against catapults I say), but I was wrong about the castle, because you will never have just a castle, but always wall+castle.
Walls is what makes the castle better: -25%(castle) -50% (walls) = -75% to bombardment.
Each treb does -16 defense. Now we bring 8 trebs for bombardment (followed by 8 suicide attacks). 1 turn does 8*-16 = -128 defense.
This first example is a city with no cultural defense bonus:
1. Wall = 50 defense. Also -50% bombardment, so 0.5 * -128 = -64.
The wall cost the attacker 1 extra turn.
2. Then add a castle. 50+50=100 defense. -75% bombardment, so 0.25 * 3 turns * -128 = -96. 100-96=4. Close enough I reckon.
Total for both = 3 turns = 1 (wall) + 2(castle).
Second example. Now a 20% cultural defense bonus:
1. first only culture: attacker loses 1 turn, actually 20/128 = 0.16
2. then add a wall: x turns = (20+50)/(0.5*128)=70/64 = 1.1
3. add a castle: x turns = (20+50+50)/(0.25*128)=120/32 = 3.75
Total(20%) = 3.75 = 0.16 (culture) + 1.04 (wall) + 2.71 (castle)
3rd example. 40% culture:
1. culture: 40/128 = 0.32
2. +walls: (40+50)/(0.5*128)=90/64 = 1.41
3. +castle: (40+50+50)/(0.25*128)=140/32 = 4.38
Total(40%) = 4.38 = 0.32 (culture) + 1.09 (wall) + 3.29 (castle)
4th example. 60% culture:
1. culture: 60/128 = 0.47
2. +walls: (60+50)/(0.5*128)=110/64 = 1.72
3. +castle: (60+50+50)/(0.25*128)=160/32 = 5.00
Total(60%) = 5.00 = 0.47 (culture) + 1.25 (wall) + 3.75 (castle)
5th example. 80% culture:
1. culture: 80/128 = 0.63
2. +walls: (80+50)/(0.5*128)=130/64 = 2.03
3. +castle: (80+50+50)/(0.25*128)=180/32 = 5.63
Total(80%) = 5.63 = 0.63 (culture) + 1.40 (wall) + 4.23 (castle)
Conclusion: against 8 trebs, building a wall only buys you about one turn (0.78 to 1.40).
If you then also build a castle, the castle helps you for about 2 to 4 turns, depending on culture.
So the walls by themselves are rubbish by the time the enemy has trebs (even against catapults I say), but I was wrong about the castle, because you will never have just a castle, but always wall+castle.
Walls is what makes the castle better: -25%(castle) -50% (walls) = -75% to bombardment.
bardolph
King
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 739
An excellent solution.
, and perhaps +25% production towards spies. That would balance them.No... it's about taking the city alright.
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
I'll throw in my 2 cents worth into the mix. I find that the main problem with castles and walls is that most times when enemy units are in my territory, I prefer to attack them rather than let them pillage my cottages/hamlets/... and then attack my units. Maybe either make the defensive bonuses from walls extent around the city radius or make the cutural defense bonus extent around the city radius (probably more realistic).
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
I like the idea of walls giving a bonus in the 3x3 area around the city, and castles around the BFC.
Perhaps allow archers or siege units to cause a small amount of ranged damage to units, i.e.: Walls allow archers and siege units to cause something like 10% damage to a single unit within the 9X9 without actually attacking or losing their fortify bonus. Castles should extend this to the BFC but only for longbows, not cross or archers (seems unrealistic).
What I had in mind by giving walls +1 espionage is that it would help balance the protective trait by giving it an economic aspect in the ancient era.
Iapetus303
Warlord
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 134
There is no compelling reason to make them ineffective against gunpowder units. Walls block bullets, and provide a height advantage for the defenders, so are both a hinderance to firearm-equipped attackers, and useful to firearm-equiped defenders.
On the other hand, catapaults, trebuchets and mortars can throw rocks/bombs over walls, and cannons/artillery can demolish them. So how about making walls and castles work against gunpowder units, but not seige? Seige might need to be nerfed slightly to balance this.
Instead/as well, seige units could have a "destroy defences" option, giving them a chance of destroying the wall/castle.
The probability of successfully destroying a wall would depend on the seige type (low for catapaults, better for artillery) and defender technology/city improvements. (Researching/building "Artillery Forts" would make it harder to destroy your walls/castles).
On the other hand, catapaults, trebuchets and mortars can throw rocks/bombs over walls, and cannons/artillery can demolish them. So how about making walls and castles work against gunpowder units, but not seige? Seige might need to be nerfed slightly to balance this.
Instead/as well, seige units could have a "destroy defences" option, giving them a chance of destroying the wall/castle.
The probability of successfully destroying a wall would depend on the seige type (low for catapaults, better for artillery) and defender technology/city improvements. (Researching/building "Artillery Forts" would make it harder to destroy your walls/castles).
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
You can do that with spies pretty well. It's way cheaper than the support city revolt mission, and the benefits last for more than one turn.
Bowsling
Deity
That's true. Most walls only surrounded the immediate settlement, just like they do in the game, and provided no protection to the surrounding countryside. In the case of attack the land was simply abandoned and everyone took shelter in the settlement.
Alrin Kharr
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 135
On a note completely unrelated to usefulness of Walls, or lack thereof, I often like to build Walls in my largest cities simply because I think they look pretty cool. Particularly if I have Stone, it only takes a few turns to build, and I can usually spare that many hammers without any noticeable slowdown in my development.
TheMeInTeam said:
Agree with all who said this.
Sib said:
Winth said:
Agree with all of the above. Expanding/modifying these ideas, here are my suggestions based on existing game mechanics:
* Non-melee units attacking from a walled city gain a +25% Withdrawal chance. Conceptually, this is the ability of ranged weapons (archery, gunpowder, and siege) to fire from behind cover; for mounted units, it is the ability to execute a sortie with the advantage of a nearby safe haven for retreat.
* Siege engines are limited in the amount of damage they can inflict on enemy units. Apply that same limit to walls (75% for catapults, 80% for cannon, etc.)
* Walls should provide a happiness benefit just as units do. This could be a general +1
which obsoletes with rifling, perhaps, or a +1 under Hereditary Rule.A note on hills
To balance an increase in the power of walls, improve general gameplay, and reduce unreality, fix the hill+city problem.
Real cities are built at high elevations; they might be built on broad, low hills; but they are not perched on hilltops above the surrounding terrain! The only structures built that way are primarily military-- i.e., castles which cover a few acres, perhaps within a city, but certainly not encompassing an entire center of population and commerce.
One solution: Eliminate the hill when a city is built, just as a forest is removed. Thus there is no added defensive bonus (and the city can spread irrigation, too).
Another solution: Cities which are built on hills cannot build harbors or aqueducts, nor can they gain the health benefit from fresh water (at least not until electricity). Water flows downhill. I think. *steps out to check* Yep, downhill only.
A note on history
Castles aren't really an upgrade of city walls, but more of a different animal altogether. They were sometimes built within cities, but more often stood alone. And they were built as part of an offensive strategy as a often as defensive.
But I suppose there is no need to quibble over names as this "outside-the-city" structure is represented in the game by forts. But it would be nice if you could slap down a fort in enemy territory while fighting a war. William the Conquerer built forts at Dover & York in just eight days each (in 1069).
Cheers.
The city of Rome had 11 aqueducts and it was built on a hill. 7 of them in fact.
http://www.inforoma.it/feature.php?lookup=aqueduct
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
That's what I would go with.
Thats like saying your going to build a wall that stretches from Cleveland to Chicago. That's a bit unrealistic to build in the time period in which they get the most use (before rapid industrialization). The only people (that I can think of) that were able to pull of a wall that big were the Chinese, and along with that came millions of deaths and complete failure (too big to keep the barbs out). My point is that its totally unrealistic, but then again civ isn't that realistic, so my vote goes to this idea
.Sure. I'd be a fool to dispute the fact that Rome had aqueducts (not to say that I am definitively not a fool, only that I choose not to reveal it at this time).
But I dispute the notion that the Roman hill(s) provided a defensive advantage when compared to flat terrain. I.e., they are not representative of a hill tile in Civ IV, but are more like what I described in the previous post ("built on broad, low hills").
The iconic stone viaducts were used only where necessary for crossing low areas. Wherever possible, the water flowed gently downhill at (or below) ground level (Water and Wastewater Systems in Imperial Rome). And if the water channel entering the city flows downhill, then the terrain just outside the city (at the entry point) must necessarily be at the same, or higher, elevation than the terrain just inside the city. Q.E.D.
Aquecuts aside, the fact that Rome was built on seven hills shows that this real-life city is not like the Civ tiles. There must necessarily be gaps between the hills (otherwise it would be one hill, not seven) and these provide points-of-entry where the attacker need not fight going uphill.
*Pulls up Rome with Google Earth* Try this, and mouseover an invasion route for elevation. There's a bit going uphill, some going downhill, and plenty of level ground.
Cheers,
Jason
Similar threads
