[Idea] Realistic City Siege

[Hydromancerx]

Also true

If I had time I would paint it for you. Can you imagine a Chess Board?

If the city is on D4 and you come from D2, you can split to C3,D3 and E3. You can walk around the city if you keep the distance, until you reach D6. From there, you can also split to D5, E5 and E5, so you more or less surround the city. You can easily also occupie the remaining two tiles adjected to the city.

so a ZoC makes only sense if it would prohibit that units can walk so close to the city. For example, if there are machine guns that cause suppressive fire. But not a Moat (it's just too small, especialy if you think of a castle moat.)

But if you have ZoC I would think that you could only enter D3 and not C3 or E3.

 

[Faustmouse]

Only true if D2 was also a ZoC tile (from a different city/fort). As Yudishtira said: What a ZoC does is prohibit walking from one ZoC tile to another. You can freely enter ZoC tiles from any tile that is not ZoC. ZoC only have an effect when you are already on a ZoC tile and try to walk to another one.

 

[Nimek]

@hydro

Orions Grand inquisition has Oil Tower building (You can grab graphic from there)

Our new building

Oil Towers
- requires warfare or other apropirate tech
- requires walls or high walls
- requires tar pit
+ 10% repeal
some damage before attack but small and not to often
Damage only for non ranged non throwing units because they dont come close enough to walls to get burn by oil.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Don't think repel and any of the effects you mentioned thereafter are currently possible on improvements. Will take significant work to make it so.

 

[Nimek]

@TB
I am talking about new building. Burning oil towers placed on city walls not about tile improvement.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In that case, sure. The repel should apply to the same combat classes as the possible damage though (for same reasons.)

Also, keep in mind repel is not yet active and won't be without a gameoption on which is not quite yet ready (but is coming together so this addition would be nice for it.) It might be wise to make this building require that option (bee bombs currently does if you're looking for an xml example of how to make a building require this option.)

 

[Hydromancerx]

Bumping for DH.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Gates

In all the discussion about walls there is no discussion about the holes in them for everyday commerce. With abatis and barbed wire you can just fill the hole with more thorny bushes or barbed wire moving them when necessary. With more substantial walls you need more. Originally they were just holes. then they were made more defensible by making the holes into passages. Eventually someone invented the hinge and gates were placed the hole.

In C2C we only represent these in High Walls. I think we should extend them backwards to better represent the real development.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Certainly something to consider. The question is... do they make a city more or less defensible? In many ways the answer may well be less. But then, if you assume that the city needs these for commerce anyhow... then the answer could be more.

I've long agonized over this question and how it should best be portrayed... to the point that I've often thought gates should be defensive, non-moving units that keeps the city from being attacked by most classes of units until they are destroyed (and only some classes of units can attack them.)

But this is really not the direction we've gone with this so far.

When we look at the gatehouse line we see a reduction of trade but an increase of defense vs espionage... and more I think... I can't recall all the modifiers they get at the moment.

I'm wondering if they could be 'walked backwards' further in time as you suggest.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

What do walls do? They

1) provide some protection from wild animals and attacking enemies - combat

2) control ingress and exit to the city limiting it to a few places allowing the authorities the ability to - reduce smuggling of goods and enforcing any taxes on goods and movement​

This

- makes it more difficult for farmers and merchants to get their goods to and from the market
- reduces crime
- makes people feel safer​

Access holes in the walls concentrates where the attacker will attack because it is easier to get in. What do gates do? They

protect the hole

still provide a weak point for enemies to attack

provide us a number of buildings to increase the defense of the hole.​

HM, this makes it look like we have the benefits and disadvantages on walls and the existing gate house and city gate house backwards.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Gates

In all the discussion about walls there is no discussion about the holes in them for everyday commerce. With abatis and barbed wire you can just fill the hole with more thorny bushes or barbed wire moving them when necessary. With more substantial walls you need more. Originally they were just holes. then they were made more defensible by making the holes into passages. Eventually someone invented the hinge and gates were placed the hole.

In C2C we only represent these in High Walls. I think we should extend them backwards to better represent the real development.

Well of gate related buildings we have are ...

- City Gatehouse
- City Gate
- Castle Gatehouse
- Castle Drawbridge
- Guardhouse
- Checkpoint (Req Totalitarianism Civic)

 

[Harrier]

Well of gate related buildings we have are ...

- City Gatehouse
- City Gate
- Castle Gatehouse
- Castle Drawbridge
- Guardhouse
- Checkpoint (Req Totalitarianism Civic)

Do any of these represent the Portcullis?

 

[Hydromancerx]

Do any of these represent the Portcullis?

I think the Gatehouses do? I am not exactly sure since I did not design them. I only made the Castle Drawbridge and Guardhouse.

 

[Arakhor]

Why is the Drawbridge a separate building? It should be assumed as part and parcel of a moat emplacement. Likewise, you have a Gatehouse, but then assume that the gates of the gatehouse are a separate building? Whatever for?

Don't make a portcullis a separate building too, otherwise, what's next? The battlements, the machicolations, the arrow-slits, the spiral staircase??

 

[Hydromancerx]

Why is the Drawbridge a separate building? It should be assumed as part and parcel of a moat emplacement. Likewise, you have a Gatehouse, but then assume that the gates of the gatehouse are a separate building? Whatever for?

Don't make a portcullis a separate building too, otherwise, what's next? The battlements, the machicolations, the arrow-slits, the spiral staircase??

It was part of my Bridge set of buildings.

And we do have arrow slits as their won separate building. They are from Afforess' Castle mod. Which predates C2C.

 

[Arakhor]

You could also add mantlets, putlog holes and all the other parts of a castle's defences, but quite frankly, if you have a moat around a castle, almost by definition you need a drawbridge or other water crossing to get its full benefit, not as a separate "optional" building.

That's precisely my point with Gates as a separate building too. If you build a set of walls, presumably you have left a way to get into the settlement and presumably said place isn't just wide open? That seems to be a classic exercise in buildings just for their own sake.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Except for a long time walls had gaps in them with no gates. Then hinges were discovered and gates were built to fill the gap in the walls. I don't mind if walls includes everything including the gates as long as it is reflected in the game and costs of the building.

Oh and ditches did not always have drawbridges either. There was usually a circuitous path/causeway through them which past well defended parts of the wall where the defenders could throw rocks at the attacker.

 

[Arakhor]

Ditches, maybe, but not moats (as far as I know), whose function was to be filled with water (or other nasty things) as a physical barrier for attacking troops.

I don’t know if arrow-slits are still in AND2, but Afforess’ work should hardly be taken as holy writ, especially as this is C2C, right?

 

[Hydromancerx]

You could also add mantlets, putlog holes and all the other parts of a castle's defences, but quite frankly, if you have a moat around a castle, almost by definition you need a drawbridge or other water crossing to get its full benefit, not as a separate "optional" building.

You could have a partial moat or even a bridge that doesn't raise with a moat.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what on earth would be the point of a fixed bridge over a moat? It destroys the whole point of the fortification not being approachable on foot!