Not necessarily. If there is enough pressure, then the water could be forced uphill for short stretches. That's how modern plumbing works after all. It doesn't take much to build up some water pressure, just make the exit point smaller than the entry. That's probably why they went in an around about path, digging channels in the hills. It allowed them to easily push the water uphill at those points
I think walls and castles were poorly implemented in civ4
- Thread starter futurehermit
- Start date
Not necessarily. If there is enough pressure, then the water could be forced uphill for short stretches. That's how modern plumbing works after all. It doesn't take much to build up some water pressure, just make the exit point smaller than the entry. That's probably why they went in an around about path, digging channels in the hills. It allowed them to easily push the water uphill at those points
I know there are a ton of ideas floating out there, but still I'd like to share what I've thought of (for some time now) on my own. The simplest answer, as I agree with a lot of others here, is that walls/castle should provide some defensive bonus that cannot be bombarded away. Ideally I'd like cultural defense to have this too (in fact, it makes no sense as it is now - cultural defense is the people's willingness to defend their city and homeland - how can you bombard that away?) So what I'd do is first make walls and castle add their bonus on top of culture (reduce them from 50 and 100 though, subject to balance). Then, the siege units of each era have a limit on how much they can bombard, something like:
catapults/trebs can bombard walls to 50% of original, culture 50%
cannons/frigates bombard walls to 25% of original, culture 33%
artillery/modern tech bombard all the way, culture 25%
This would also be subject to balance of course.
However, there is also a need for attacking to still be viable - hence I would like to introduce a new mechanic for capturing cities. First, a city which has starved/is starving is subject to a chance of revolt (and hence surrender). Then, as with naval units, attacking enemy units exert a zone of control preventing the tiles in the 3x3 around them from being worked by the city. So a few attackers can starve out a city if the defenders don't sally out, even while taking the walls would be much harder. The spy incite revolt mission should probably also be made more expensive or changed.
Also, I'd really love for siege units to simply have a ranged bombard ability (does more damage/collateral with promos) as their main attack - no attacking with collateral damage despite that being the "thing" of civIV. This would make it possible to soften up the top couple of defenders if you brought a strong enough attack force along (also prevent a couple of defenders from holding a city against an obviously superior force- also keep them trapped in the city so they can't break off your seige.
Edit: Heh, page 3 is where some of the real discussion is at! Like I've agreed not obsoleting them is of course sensible - at least not until things like bombers. I don't think a "lockdown" mode is a great idea for civ though - letting the attacker starve the city makes more sense to me. Lastly, a point discussed about garrisons relates to another idea of mine, something I was just talking about in another thread - I think that units with city garrison promos should be able to garrison for 0 upkeep, while unit upkeep is increased for all other units (this also would allow cool things like entirely eliminating inflation, IMHO - you could have late game tech units like tanks cost like 5 gpt but at least you have an honest choice on what to do with your money.) Walls and castles and barracks would increase the number of units you could garrison in a city.
Not trying to overly tout my own ideas, but here's a link anyway (near the end):
catapults/trebs can bombard walls to 50% of original, culture 50%
cannons/frigates bombard walls to 25% of original, culture 33%
artillery/modern tech bombard all the way, culture 25%
This would also be subject to balance of course.
However, there is also a need for attacking to still be viable - hence I would like to introduce a new mechanic for capturing cities. First, a city which has starved/is starving is subject to a chance of revolt (and hence surrender). Then, as with naval units, attacking enemy units exert a zone of control preventing the tiles in the 3x3 around them from being worked by the city. So a few attackers can starve out a city if the defenders don't sally out, even while taking the walls would be much harder. The spy incite revolt mission should probably also be made more expensive or changed.
Also, I'd really love for siege units to simply have a ranged bombard ability (does more damage/collateral with promos) as their main attack - no attacking with collateral damage despite that being the "thing" of civIV. This would make it possible to soften up the top couple of defenders if you brought a strong enough attack force along (also prevent a couple of defenders from holding a city against an obviously superior force- also keep them trapped in the city so they can't break off your seige.
Edit: Heh, page 3 is where some of the real discussion is at! Like I've agreed not obsoleting them is of course sensible - at least not until things like bombers. I don't think a "lockdown" mode is a great idea for civ though - letting the attacker starve the city makes more sense to me. Lastly, a point discussed about garrisons relates to another idea of mine, something I was just talking about in another thread - I think that units with city garrison promos should be able to garrison for 0 upkeep, while unit upkeep is increased for all other units (this also would allow cool things like entirely eliminating inflation, IMHO - you could have late game tech units like tanks cost like 5 gpt but at least you have an honest choice on what to do with your money.) Walls and castles and barracks would increase the number of units you could garrison in a city.
Not trying to overly tout my own ideas, but here's a link anyway (near the end):
Spoiler :
Walls should give:
+1
, +10% attack for land-based units starting in city, +50% defense, -50% bombardment, obsolete with assembly line or when all civs reach steel. Castles should be obsolete with corporation or when all civs reach steel.
In addition to their current uses, forts should also add +10% attack for land-based units starting in them.
+1
, +10% attack for land-based units starting in city, +50% defense, -50% bombardment, obsolete with assembly line or when all civs reach steel. Castles should be obsolete with corporation or when all civs reach steel.In addition to their current uses, forts should also add +10% attack for land-based units starting in them.
me said:
A pump does not create pressure; rather, it displaces fluid. Simply narrowing the pipe will not make water flow uphill.
If the terminal point C is above the entry point B then that entry point must be preceded (at a short distance for practical purposes) by a higher point A.
See the siphon in figure 3.
Hence the described arrangement might allow you to bring in water over a fossé, but it will not transfer water to a city on a hill that sits above the general surrounding terrain.
Hydrodynamics aside, let me put it another way: A hill can be a great defensive point if you build (or deploy) to match the size and shape of the hill. But nature does not pre-construct city-sized hills.
Take a look at this contour map. Campadoglio, Palatino, and Celio are perfectly defensible hills, but notice that the river does not flow over the top of them. If you want river access, you have to go down to the valley. More to the point, the city spans several hills. There are gaps everywhere, and almost any attack from the east (assuming east is the right side of the map) would not have to go uphill.
Cheers,
Jason
QuixotesGhost
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 272
How bout...
A unit in a castle should be able to use either all or a portion of their first strikes against adjacent units without repercussion (a combat that consists of only first strikes). That gives you some synergy with Protective.
A unit in a castle should be able to use either all or a portion of their first strikes against adjacent units without repercussion (a combat that consists of only first strikes). That gives you some synergy with Protective.
Hi
I LOVE building castles. I love the xtra trade routes and will even delay Eco because of them. To the point that I will sometimes try to make sure I already have the second prereq to corp good to go before I get eco just so I can get to corp and recovcer from the loss asap. And when you have castles in dbl digit cities all big enough where those routes are 5-6 or even more commerce then add in the modifiers from buildings losing them all at once DOES make a difference.
The ep boost is also nice and dont knock the lil bit of culture they bring culture is the ONE thing that NEVER obsoletes and dbls over time. And while they may not make all THAT big a deal in getting a city to legendary they way culture is done in game now that a little cultrue built up over time can "stick" to the land tiles around it they CAN help with culture border fights and help against culture bombs. Plus walls (not sure about castles I dont know if they add to power or not) are a nice maintaincae free way to boost power rating if you build em in all your cities.
And thats all in addition to defensive bonuses and slowing down of seige reducing the defences.
So building LOTS of castles (and as result lots of walls) CAN be a noticible boost to your empire.
So I think their bonus as is are pretty spiffy. The REAL problem I think is just that as been pointed out for many castles obsolete SOOOOOO fast that most ppl dont bother with em so never really use em. So I think just extending their time before they expire is all thats needed.
My pick would be walls dont expire until steel and castles dont expire till artillery. That will extend their lifespan to point where it gives time to not only build em but also to feel their effects. I also think onset of cannons making walls not so big a deal and then artie for castles makes kind of sense. It been pointed that those things couldnt shoot THROUGH them. But Im no historian or nething but I think main reason while those things made walls and castles not so practical anymore wasnt that they could shoot through em but could shoout OVER em and do it from a LOOOONG ways off. So even from a logic point to me that makes more sense.
And for those who still think castles should get a bigger bonus--hey if castles dont expire with eco that means that until you get artie their bonus routes would stack with corp--add in free market and that is a VERY nice bonus you'll be getting. IF you leverage it by making sure you have em in all the cities you can. It will even make it worth planning ahead to make sure you build walls when possible just so you can get castles.
I dont think boosting defensive bonuses of either is all necessary or even desirable. From game point of view game already favors defender LOTS. Wars can be a slow drawn out quagmire ALREADY. So doing things to to make denders tuffers and wars longer not all THAT good a thing I think.
But also from logic standpoint in terms of game play walls and even castles were never meant to add THAT much defense. In terms of game play walls are ONLY meant to slow down axes and chariots. By time you get into late classical age walls SHOULDNT mean as much--for your biggest cities by that time its their cultural defenses that will count more anyways and just fact that those old walls that scared off the axes now make it a lil bit tuffer for those cats to drop the cultureal defenses is really enough of a boost they should be giving at that point in game. And by that point in game the comparable 50% boost they give to newer cities is big enough.
Same deal with castles --the fact that they can slow down a medieval offense is all they meant to do and by time cannons and stuff come round giving them more than just the ability to slowdown dropping of defences isnt really necessary it nice but really by time of gunpowder they really are around for their other benefits--trade routes, ep points, culture boosting.
Then there is also consideration that JUST changing the techs that obsolete em probably wouldnt take more than just changing one line of code for each so as a result wouldnt be as likely to have as many unforseen effects on gameplay.
Kaytie
I LOVE building castles. I love the xtra trade routes and will even delay Eco because of them. To the point that I will sometimes try to make sure I already have the second prereq to corp good to go before I get eco just so I can get to corp and recovcer from the loss asap. And when you have castles in dbl digit cities all big enough where those routes are 5-6 or even more commerce then add in the modifiers from buildings losing them all at once DOES make a difference.
The ep boost is also nice and dont knock the lil bit of culture they bring culture is the ONE thing that NEVER obsoletes and dbls over time. And while they may not make all THAT big a deal in getting a city to legendary they way culture is done in game now that a little cultrue built up over time can "stick" to the land tiles around it they CAN help with culture border fights and help against culture bombs. Plus walls (not sure about castles I dont know if they add to power or not) are a nice maintaincae free way to boost power rating if you build em in all your cities.
And thats all in addition to defensive bonuses and slowing down of seige reducing the defences.
So building LOTS of castles (and as result lots of walls) CAN be a noticible boost to your empire.
So I think their bonus as is are pretty spiffy. The REAL problem I think is just that as been pointed out for many castles obsolete SOOOOOO fast that most ppl dont bother with em so never really use em. So I think just extending their time before they expire is all thats needed.
My pick would be walls dont expire until steel and castles dont expire till artillery. That will extend their lifespan to point where it gives time to not only build em but also to feel their effects. I also think onset of cannons making walls not so big a deal and then artie for castles makes kind of sense. It been pointed that those things couldnt shoot THROUGH them. But Im no historian or nething but I think main reason while those things made walls and castles not so practical anymore wasnt that they could shoot through em but could shoout OVER em and do it from a LOOOONG ways off. So even from a logic point to me that makes more sense.
And for those who still think castles should get a bigger bonus--hey if castles dont expire with eco that means that until you get artie their bonus routes would stack with corp--add in free market and that is a VERY nice bonus you'll be getting. IF you leverage it by making sure you have em in all the cities you can. It will even make it worth planning ahead to make sure you build walls when possible just so you can get castles.
I dont think boosting defensive bonuses of either is all necessary or even desirable. From game point of view game already favors defender LOTS. Wars can be a slow drawn out quagmire ALREADY. So doing things to to make denders tuffers and wars longer not all THAT good a thing I think.
But also from logic standpoint in terms of game play walls and even castles were never meant to add THAT much defense. In terms of game play walls are ONLY meant to slow down axes and chariots. By time you get into late classical age walls SHOULDNT mean as much--for your biggest cities by that time its their cultural defenses that will count more anyways and just fact that those old walls that scared off the axes now make it a lil bit tuffer for those cats to drop the cultureal defenses is really enough of a boost they should be giving at that point in game. And by that point in game the comparable 50% boost they give to newer cities is big enough.
Same deal with castles --the fact that they can slow down a medieval offense is all they meant to do and by time cannons and stuff come round giving them more than just the ability to slowdown dropping of defences isnt really necessary it nice but really by time of gunpowder they really are around for their other benefits--trade routes, ep points, culture boosting.
Then there is also consideration that JUST changing the techs that obsolete em probably wouldnt take more than just changing one line of code for each so as a result wouldnt be as likely to have as many unforseen effects on gameplay.
Kaytie
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
For the record, you know Economics opens up the Free Market civic which will instantly make up for the lost trade routes, right? You don't need to reach Corporation. (No reason to not hop into Free Market instantly, unless you're in Mercantilism but then those extra routes aren't doing you much good anyway.)
Hi
I know but yes I usually am in merc and dont usually want to give it up at that point. And merc only blocks foreign trade routes so xtra trade routes within your own cities or from your vassels via castles still very nice and like I said is VERY noticeable if you have a lot of castles built and lose em all at once.
Kaytie
I know but yes I usually am in merc and dont usually want to give it up at that point. And merc only blocks foreign trade routes so xtra trade routes within your own cities or from your vassels via castles still very nice and like I said is VERY noticeable if you have a lot of castles built and lose em all at once.
Kaytie
Kaytie,
I think castles would probably be too strong if they were allowed to be used in conjunction with the Free Market extra trade routes. I suspect the reason Firaxis made castles obsolete at Economics in the first place was to avoid the double up on trade routes, and they probably didn't give too much thought as to how quickly players usually go from Engineering to Economics.
If the obsolescence (spelling?) date was extended, in a way, castles would sometimes be a better economic building than harbors, though I guess that shouldn't be absurd.
I also enjoy using castles, mainly when playing PRO leaders, as a wall + castle together actually costs less than a library! The fact they are cheaper than the already cheap library, and have multiple positive effects, is enough for me to call them a great building already. It gives a nice boost to PRO leaders to get these buildings up so fast.
I think castles would probably be too strong if they were allowed to be used in conjunction with the Free Market extra trade routes. I suspect the reason Firaxis made castles obsolete at Economics in the first place was to avoid the double up on trade routes, and they probably didn't give too much thought as to how quickly players usually go from Engineering to Economics.
If the obsolescence (spelling?) date was extended, in a way, castles would sometimes be a better economic building than harbors, though I guess that shouldn't be absurd.
I also enjoy using castles, mainly when playing PRO leaders, as a wall + castle together actually costs less than a library! The fact they are cheaper than the already cheap library, and have multiple positive effects, is enough for me to call them a great building already. It gives a nice boost to PRO leaders to get these buildings up so fast.
Hi
Yeah the xtra trade routes would be huge most likely. Would they be game breaking or or not I dont know. I guess I was just trying to think of a way to make it easier to extend their use. Although really I seem to get a lot of time out of em with the way I play. So I can honestly live with they way they are now. Itis just about whether or not you chose to try and extend them. I think that is why lots of ppl dont like them. Lots seem to have a preference of tech paths that means castles wont be of much use. And instead of chosing to alter their play styles they would rather alter the casltes. Kind of like the protective trait itself. It can really be useful if you alter your playstyle to fit it but the more popular playstyles dont favor it so it gets a bad rap. But I think that is really part of fun of game--choices. If you chose one direction you get this but miss out on that and vice versa. And some people get so comfy with chosing one certain way anything that doesnt fit into it is just considered weak or bad or whatever.
Oh and FYI to be nit picky TECHNICALLY eco isnt the ONLY way to obsolete castles. Rifling pretty much ends the castle building process. True it doesnt end all the benefits of any existing caslte but you cant build anymore in any city that hasnt built walls by that point. And for me plenty of games I usually end up getting rifling b4 eco. Which is actually kind of funny to me all the lil building guys who build the buildings at that point --"build a big fancy caslte sure no prob" but ask em to stack a few bricks together and make a wall "uh gee we forgot how to do that" hehe it seems a lil silly. Maybe not very realistic but this IS a game where you use production to "build" Rock n Roll--not to mention sending out fishing boats to go get giant mutant clams
Kaytie
Yeah the xtra trade routes would be huge most likely. Would they be game breaking or or not I dont know. I guess I was just trying to think of a way to make it easier to extend their use. Although really I seem to get a lot of time out of em with the way I play. So I can honestly live with they way they are now. Itis just about whether or not you chose to try and extend them. I think that is why lots of ppl dont like them. Lots seem to have a preference of tech paths that means castles wont be of much use. And instead of chosing to alter their play styles they would rather alter the casltes. Kind of like the protective trait itself. It can really be useful if you alter your playstyle to fit it but the more popular playstyles dont favor it so it gets a bad rap. But I think that is really part of fun of game--choices. If you chose one direction you get this but miss out on that and vice versa. And some people get so comfy with chosing one certain way anything that doesnt fit into it is just considered weak or bad or whatever.
Oh and FYI to be nit picky TECHNICALLY eco isnt the ONLY way to obsolete castles. Rifling pretty much ends the castle building process. True it doesnt end all the benefits of any existing caslte but you cant build anymore in any city that hasnt built walls by that point. And for me plenty of games I usually end up getting rifling b4 eco. Which is actually kind of funny to me all the lil building guys who build the buildings at that point --"build a big fancy caslte sure no prob" but ask em to stack a few bricks together and make a wall "uh gee we forgot how to do that" hehe it seems a lil silly. Maybe not very realistic but this IS a game where you use production to "build" Rock n Roll--not to mention sending out fishing boats to go get giant mutant clams
Kaytie
Hi
Yeah the xtra trade routes would be huge most likely. Would they be game breaking or or not I dont know. I guess I was just trying to think of a way to make it easier to extend their use. Although really I seem to get a lot of time out of em with the way I play. So I can honestly live with they way they are now. Itis just about whether or not you chose to try and extend them. I think that is why lots of ppl dont like them. Lots seem to have a preference of tech paths that means castles wont be of much use. And instead of chosing to alter their play styles they would rather alter the casltes. Kind of like the protective trait itself. It can really be useful if you alter your playstyle to fit it but the more popular playstyles dont favor it so it gets a bad rap. But I think that is really part of fun of game--choices. If you chose one direction you get this but miss out on that and vice versa. And some people get so comfy with chosing one certain way anything that doesnt fit into it is just considered weak or bad or whatever.
Oh and FYI to be nit picky TECHNICALLY eco isnt the ONLY way to obsolete castles. Rifling pretty much ends the castle building process. True it doesnt end all the benefits of any existing caslte but you cant build anymore in any city that hasnt built walls by that point. And for me plenty of games I usually end up getting rifling b4 eco. Which is actually kind of funny to me all the lil building guys who build the buildings at that point --"build a big fancy caslte sure no prob" but ask em to stack a few bricks together and make a wall "uh gee we forgot how to do that" hehe it seems a lil silly. Maybe not very realistic but this IS a game where you use production to "build" Rock n Roll--not to mention sending out fishing boats to go get giant mutant clams
Kaytie
Let me preface this by saying that I play Marathon / Huge / 18 Civ / Emperor games; your results may vary.
I am actually a big fan of walls and castles for several reasons. The way I usually play is to Rex or early war my way to 9-12 cities (I find this to be about the limit I can economically handle with my meagre skill, depending on the land, at start). Then I turtle up, stabilize the economy, improve the land, and tech. My military at this point is pretty much only one stack; I need those walls and castles to allow my garrisons to hold off an enemy surprise attack (I'm looking at you, Monty) while I move my counterattacking force into position. And since there is a LONG time in the pre-Ren game where military parity is the norm, that extra time is key to keep the enemy at bay while you counter. The AI NEVER brings enough siege and rarely attacks until culture is down to 0; those castles buy alot of time (this is also probably the only time Chicken Pizza is worth building) The extra EP, Power, and TR are all icing on the cake. And if I happen to be playing as Spain.....
Similar threads
