Let's talk about the new Walls... I have some questions.

[Lazy sweeper]

It seems possible to now for every civilization to build long walls along their borders.
But their function is not so clear. Can someone cave in and describe their use and functions?
Does it block barbaric invasions?
Do attackers need siege machines to cross the wall?
There are walls upgrades? Like basic wood walls then stone, reinforced stone or is it just different look for different civs but no real difference?
Also it seems towers are added at each wall section. Does these towers shoot back automatically or does the defender have to fill in the tower with archers?? (that would seem logic).
Does wall have HP and fall after they have been damaged enough? If so, without catapults or sappler, how can the attacker damage the wall? A normal warrior or horse archer could torn down a stone wall???
All questions I do not have answers, and no video on yt has helped me understand it. Tnx.

Please make the distinction between city-district walls and the border Great Walls-like walls.
City Walls seems to have HP also, and all kind of units can attack them and breach them.
But their look is completely different and they don't have towers that auto shoot, or have slots for additional archers.

 

[MutilationWave]

It seems possible to now for every civilization to build long walls along their borders.
But their function is not so clear. Can someone cave in and describe their use and functions?
Does it block barbaric invasions?
Do attackers need siege machines to cross the wall?
There are walls upgrades? Like basic wood walls then stone, reinforced stone or is it just different look for different civs but no real difference?
Also it seems towers are added at each wall section. Does these towers shoot back automatically or does the defender have to fill in the tower with archers?? (that would seem logic).
Does wall have HP and fall after they have been damaged enough? If so, without catapults or sappler, how can the attacker damage the wall? A normal warrior or horse archer could torn down a stone wall???
All questions I do not have answers, and no video on yt has helped me understand it. Tnx.

Please make the distinction between city-district walls and the border Great Walls-like walls.
City Walls seems to have HP also, and all kind of units can attack them and breach them.
But their look is completely different and they don't have towers that auto shoot, or have slots for additional archers.

As far as I have seen, the three Chinese dynasty civs are the only ones who can build long walls like this. They improve combat strength of units in the same hex for defense. They also provide additional yields.

There are no walls that auto shoot, and you can't really slot archers into the walls, you can just have them on the same hex and say they are manning the wall.

I'm curious what you saw that gave you these ideas.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It seems possible to now for every civilization to build long walls along their borders.
But their function is not so clear. Can someone cave in and describe their use and functions?
Does it block barbaric invasions?
Do attackers need siege machines to cross the wall?
There are walls upgrades? Like basic wood walls then stone, reinforced stone or is it just different look for different civs but no real difference?
Also it seems towers are added at each wall section. Does these towers shoot back automatically or does the defender have to fill in the tower with archers?? (that would seem logic).
Does wall have HP and fall after they have been damaged enough? If so, without catapults or sappler, how can the attacker damage the wall? A normal warrior or horse archer could torn down a stone wall???
All questions I do not have answers, and no video on yt has helped me understand it. Tnx.

Please make the distinction between city-district walls and the border Great Walls-like walls.
City Walls seems to have HP also, and all kind of units can attack them and breach them.
But their look is completely different and they don't have towers that auto shoot, or have slots for additional archers.

City Walls offer defense for the city from invaders, primarily, all City Walls have to be conquered before the city can be taken, which can slow down anyone trying to conquer that city.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Very curious.

Every civ can make a "fortified district", that is, build the walls from that age around an urban district. It's possible in Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern; they each have different names and are unlocked by researching certain techs in each age. I *think* that after building walls around the district with the palace or city hall, that one can proceed to build more walls around *adjacent* districts, growing outward from the center.
>>> Civ-specific note: The Normans (Exploration) can build a unique building (the Motte) which also acts like a fortified district. I found out the importance of this when attacking an AI who built one. <<<< Certain wonders also act like fortified districts.

To conquer a city or town, you have to occupy all of the fortified districts. If none are fortified, just take the center. If only the center is fortified, break down the walls by attacking and move your unit inside. If more than one district is fortified, you have to break down and occupy them all. When attacking a fortified district, you should see a health bar that goes from green -> yellow -> red as the fortifications are broken down. Attacking an AI capital, or a city that was the capital in a previous age, can turn into a major campaign, requiring lots of units. Bombers help Siege units help, too.

As far as I know, this hasn't changed since launch.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Right now, except for certain Civ Specialities, you cannot build 'permanent' Fortifications/Walls outside of Urban tiles.

Particularly in the Antiquity and Exploration Age, this is a major lack in the game: think Castles, most of which were built to control the countryside and so types like the White Tower built In-City were the minority.

Nor were Castles a European-only phenomena: fortified rural structures ranging from Mycenean Citadels to Persian walls and forts to Roman walls to Tang Chinese 'estates' were also all ecamples of the rural Fortification.

Not only could these make conquest of a territory much harder than it is now, they also make Control of a territory much harder: the decentralized pre-gunpowder feudal system owed much of its tenacious longevity to the difficulty of reducing the many castles, and the advent of wall-breaking gunpowder weapons (Bombards, already in-game) also had a major political effect when it made the traditional (mainly European) castles very suddenly Obsolete.

Just a thought for a potential addition to (especially) Exploration game play.

 

[Sagax]

Quite a few misunderstandings here…

It seems possible to now for every civilization to build long walls along their borders.

Every civilization can only build walls around their urban tiles. If the urban tiles happen to spread along the borders, then I guess it technically counts.

The only “long walls” in the game are Han and Ming Great Walls - but they don’t function as walls from the gameplay standpoint. They are Unique Improvements that happen to look like walls.

But their function is not so clear. Can someone cave in and describe their use and functions?

Does it block barbaric invasions?
Do attackers need siege machines to cross the wall?
There are walls upgrades? Like basic wood walls then stone, reinforced stone or is it just different look for different civs but no real difference?

See the comment by @vorlon_mi

Also it seems towers are added at each wall section. Does these towers shoot back automatically or does the defender have to fill in the tower with archers?? (that would seem logic).

Again, you seem to be thinking of the Great Wall improvement. They are the equivalent of Fort improvements in the past, granting combat strength to the units on their tile, plus a few other yields. They don’t have health, and the towers are just cosmetic. Sure, “fill them with archers” if you want, but there’s no added nuance to it.

Please make the distinction between city-district walls and the border Great Walls-like walls.
City Walls seems to have HP also, and all kind of units can attack them and breach them.
But their look is completely different and they don't have towers that auto shoot, or have slots for additional archers.

I think most of this confusion comes from thinking that Great Walls are actually walls. They are not - and once that’s cleared up, the rest of the mechanics are pretty self-explanatory.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think most of this confusion comes from thinking that Great Walls are actually walls. They are not - and once that’s cleared up, the rest of the mechanics are pretty self-explanatory.

- And this is actually very realistic historically. The Chinese "Long Walls" were only secondarily of any use as defensive fortifications. Their real purpose was Population Control.

For much of the early Dynasties, compared to the life of a Chinese peasant, the life of a "northern Barbarian' looked really good: more freedom, less taxes, better chance to be something other than the Man On The Bottom of the social heirarchy. Consequently, there was a steady migration out of China onto the northern steppes and a resulting loss of tax-paying laborers for the Chinese Dynastic State to oppress use.

The walls were the answer. They might not stop an army for very long unless well-garrisoned, but they would stop anybody from leaving with anything more than they could carry on their backs while climbing up and down 10 meters or more of rammed earth, mud brick or stone walls. The few authorized gates in the walls were strictly for authorized traffic, primarily merchant traders going back and forth between the northern and Chinese 'states' - trade was continuous and massive, since the Barbarians had horses, furs, and minerals that the Chinese army and nobles wanted, and the Barbarians were ready customers for Chinese silks and manufactured goods.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

- And this is actually very realistic historically. The Chinese "Long Walls" were only secondarily of any use as defensive fortifications. Their real purpose was Population Control.

For much of the early Dynasties, compared to the life of a Chinese peasant, the life of a "northern Barbarian' looked really good: more freedom, less taxes, better chance to be something other than the Man On The Bottom of the social heirarchy. Consequently, there was a steady migration out of China onto the northern steppes and a resulting loss of tax-paying laborers for the Chinese Dynastic State to oppress use.

The walls were the answer. They might not stop an army for very long unless well-garrisoned, but they would stop anybody from leaving with anything more than they could carry on their backs while climbing up and down 10 meters or more of rammed earth, mud brick or stone walls. The few authorized gates in the walls were strictly for authorized traffic, primarily merchant traders going back and forth between the northern and Chinese 'states' - trade was continuous and massive, since the Barbarians had horses, furs, and minerals that the Chinese army and nobles wanted, and the Barbarians were ready customers for Chinese silks and manufactured goods.

What about Roman Hadrian wall? Were the soldiers garrisoned there having fun trading wine for some pictish stockfish?
Valletta - Turks siege lasted for years... after Constantinople which also took years but felt... both were super-active, and had many firing positions.
Outside city walls Bastions were tuff nuts to crack, but if taken could provide aid with an elevated firing position.
These would be positioned in cross-fire range of the main city protecting it.
Valletta bastion was probably the harder in History, with underwater tunnels!!

I'm curious what you saw that gave you these ideas.

Very curious.

Every civ can make a "fortified district", that is, build the walls from that age ...

AOE? I'ts completely different but you can build towers and fill them with archers behind the main castle walls and it's great. (AOE? maybe it's another game...)
C4 Great Wall was at least ok at repelling barbarians.
HK city walls stop all units that doesnt have specific wall climbing promotions, and after stone wall there is towers upgrade, which doesnt count as spawn locations but could, as attackers can produce siege engines, rams (but not earth ramps or wood ladders...) and it would be more logical.

Star Forts also stood against early cannons for centuries untill flight. And they had elevated bastions cannon position to counter fire, surrounded by moats.
Constantinople had three levels of walls that stood for centuries.
The vast majority of "Big" walls in Italy and other parts of the world then are of Megalitic origin and Kings built entire cities on top of these elevated spots.
Malta Valletta is one giant wall-fort transformed into a city... and a natural high-spot gives an advantage to defenders usually.

Again, you seem to be thinking of the Great Wall improvement. They are the equivalent of Fort improvements in the past, granting combat strength to the units on their tile, plus a few other yields. They don’t have health, and the towers are just cosmetic. Sure, “fill them with archers” if you want, but there’s no added nuance to it.

The Great wall is portrayed in movies with Armies of Archers, hidden doors with cannons behind, and dangling-jumping Kung-Fu masters walking sideways repelling Giant Lizards and had Zjangje Chariots running all along... if poor people was scared to get outside I guess it was not the intended use - priority - when initially engineered... I might be wrong...
I watched too many movies

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What about Roman Hadrian wall? Were the soldiers garrisoned there having fun trading wine for some pictish stockfish?

Hadrian's Wall, and the wall further north the name of which escapes me at the moment, and the much longer walls along the Rhine and Danube and sets of border forts in southern Egypt, eastern (modern) Palestine and Syria and North Africa were all designed both to control movement of individuals and to keep out or at least inconvenience armies. The Romans' problem was the opposite of the Chinese Dynasties', people wanted into the Empire, not to leave. When the Roman Imperium was founded, the point was to keep the non-Romans out because they already had plenty of population to work the land and pay taxes, After the plagues of the 2nd and early 3rd century, the Romans were far more open to letting in migrants because they desperately needed replacements for the estimated 1/3 of their population that had perished in the plagues. In that respect, the emphasis at the borders changed dramatically.

BUT even the Roman military borders, manned by up to 300,000 or more troops at the Roman military's peak, always saw plenty of movement back and forth. Yes, traders were crossing Hadrian's Wall in both directions, carrying Roman manufactured goods and wine north and Caledonian/Pictish wool, furs and other 'raw' materials south. The German border, aside from amber, furs, timber, and metals flowing into Roman territory and wine and manufactured goods flowing north, even saw 'tourist' traffic, as the hot springs at modern Wiesbaden, right across the Rhine from the huge Roman military camp at Mainz, welcomed hot bath-loving Romans to come visit, and by the 5th century the (German) encampment there was incorporated as a Roman city (the stonework of the original Roman city gate is still there).

In several early languages (including, I believe, Chinese) the words for Wall and City are closely related, and archeological evidence of stone walls around cities complete with towers and other defensive 'additions' have been found across the region from the Mediterranean coast to central Asia dating back to 4500 BCE - before Civ's nominal Start of Game, so the Fortified City is just about as old as the city in general.

At the other end of history, bastioned fortifications dating back to the anti-artillery developments of the 16th and 17th centuries were still in place around many cities in Europe during World War Two. One German garrison commander was rather incensed when the US Army brought up a self-propelled 155mm cannon (which Civ VII shows as an 'assault gun') and blew the gate and gate house of a Vauban fortification he was defending near Metz to bits from a range of less than 500 meters. He regarded that as 'cheating', but was probably lucky that his opponents didn't simply call in several squadrons of B-17s and flatten the entire fort, garrison and all.

Historians and especially 'pop history' (read: movies if you choose) tend to focus on the Combat Effects of fortifications and walls, the sieges, invasions, raids, but they and too many others forget that it is much eaxsier and more convenient for all concerned to Trade rather than Fight across borders. For the German tribe (the Matti) in Wiesbaden, this was an especially easy decision: they had something the Romans wanted - a hot spring - while the Romans across the river had 2 Legions plus Auxiliary troops concentrated: probably more heavily-armed men than the entire German tribe had members even if they counted the pigs and cattle. Deciding to provide/trade a service rather than fight is not likely to have involved ed a lot of debate . . .

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Historians and especially 'pop history' (read: movies if you choose) tend to focus on the Combat Effects of fortifications and walls, the sieges, invasions, raids, but they and too many others forget that it is much eaxsier and more convenient for all concerned to Trade rather than Fight across borders.. .

Videogame and movies also has much in common in that sense...
It's pop-ular believe that walls were used in combination with plenty of towers and other firing positions...
So I'd expect that in a game as in watching a movie, or a tv series like Vikings S3 E6 the siege of Paris
is very spectacular, with floating towers that were put on fire, and that deadly bridge with rotating spiked tube...

The inherent problem lies in the 1Upt system but it's not like the old stacks could have solved this problem easily either.
Back then in Rome fall scenario Legionaires had fortified look out, that filled with archers could be used to tame the Mongols raiders a little bit.
This system was used just for this scenario but it worked... If there was the possibility to also build fortified walls that could stop cavalry at least slow them down...
it would have been great...
In 1Upt one single bowman would be enough I guess, but it would have at least to have to share the same hex where there is the tower and part of the wall, with another infantry unit or Onager, Cavalry, etc, so that could attack the attacker also, going past the wall. But in no way a single unit could just stomp on a wall like it doesnt even exist and pillage it...

The Great China Wall should be available to all Civs, everyone different in look and effects. Speed of construction. Legionaires could build fortifications as charges in Civ V,
they could as well being given the ability to build long fortified wood walls at least, and then an engineer to upgrade that to stone walls like those made in Romania and Bulgaria.
Those tribes filled the walls with timbers and earth, expanding greatly their effectiveness and durability.

I think it's a pity that only China got that bonus.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

As far as I have seen, the three Chinese dynasty civs are the only ones who can build long walls like this. They improve combat strength of units in the same hex for defense. They also provide additional yields.

There are no walls that auto shoot, and you can't really slot archers into the walls, you can just have them on the same hex and say they are manning the wall.

I'm curious what you saw that gave you these ideas.

Qing China can't build big walls that occupy the entire hex.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Qing China can't build big walls that occupy the entire hex.

I have no idea, but judging from the pop culture movies they could ride chariots on them.
And were very effective at leaving the big Lizards out, even if they could climb the wall, there were Crossbowmen on top of the wall shooting them down.

I mean if they are big as an entire Hex, they could act as terrain modifier also and act as hills at least...or better impassable mountains but destructible...

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Hadrian's Wall, and the wall further north the name of which escapes me at the moment, and the much longer walls along the Rhine and Danube and sets of border forts in southern Egypt, eastern (modern) Palestine and Syria and North Africa were all designed both to control movement of individuals and to keep out or at least inconvenience armies. The Romans' problem was the opposite of the Chinese Dynasties', people wanted into the Empire, not to leave. When the Roman Imperium was founded, the point was to keep the non-Romans out because they already had plenty of population to work the land and pay taxes, After the plagues of the 2nd and early 3rd century, the Romans were far more open to letting in migrants because they desperately needed replacements for the estimated 1/3 of their population that had perished in the plagues. In that respect, the emphasis at the borders changed dramatically.

BUT even the Roman military borders, manned by up to 300,000 or more troops at the Roman military's peak, always saw plenty of movement back and forth. Yes, traders were crossing Hadrian's Wall in both directions, carrying Roman manufactured goods and wine north and Caledonian/Pictish wool, furs and other 'raw' materials south. The German border, aside from amber, furs, timber, and metals flowing into Roman territory and wine and manufactured goods flowing north, even saw 'tourist' traffic, as the hot springs at modern Wiesbaden, right across the Rhine from the huge Roman military camp at Mainz, welcomed hot bath-loving Romans to come visit, and by the 5th century the (German) encampment there was incorporated as a Roman city (the stonework of the original Roman city gate is still there).

In several early languages (including, I believe, Chinese) the words for Wall and City are closely related, and archeological evidence of stone walls around cities complete with towers and other defensive 'additions' have been found across the region from the Mediterranean coast to central Asia dating back to 4500 BCE - before Civ's nominal Start of Game, so the Fortified City is just about as old as the city in general.

At the other end of history, bastioned fortifications dating back to the anti-artillery developments of the 16th and 17th centuries were still in place around many cities in Europe during World War Two. One German garrison commander was rather incensed when the US Army brought up a self-propelled 155mm cannon (which Civ VII shows as an 'assault gun') and blew the gate and gate house of a Vauban fortification he was defending near Metz to bits from a range of less than 500 meters. He regarded that as 'cheating', but was probably lucky that his opponents didn't simply call in several squadrons of B-17s and flatten the entire fort, garrison and all.

Historians and especially 'pop history' (read: movies if you choose) tend to focus on the Combat Effects of fortifications and walls, the sieges, invasions, raids, but they and too many others forget that it is much eaxsier and more convenient for all concerned to Trade rather than Fight across borders. For the German tribe (the Matti) in Wiesbaden, this was an especially easy decision: they had something the Romans wanted - a hot spring - while the Romans across the river had 2 Legions plus Auxiliary troops concentrated: probably more heavily-armed men than the entire German tribe had members even if they counted the pigs and cattle. Deciding to provide/trade a service rather than fight is not likely to have involved ed a lot of debate . . .

And Fast Forward to the Middle Ages (Age II. Basically the game can be divided into FOUR ages, with Feudal Age being the second, where Normans rightfully playable there. Age III should be Exploration (Where Spain shines. Though before 1500 the 'Spain' existed as so many kingdoms and principalities. then Castillia emerged and win other factions, and above out, drove Moors out of Andalusia / Iberia completely). Someone else has to be their forerunners, mmm Castillia or who else?)

There are generic 'Dungeons' as a generic building, built with the layout of modern prison with medieval cage to hold convicts and prison cells below. AFAIK 'Dungeons' as purpose built penitary facilityt did not existed yet. 'Dungeons' actually part of. or even it is by itself 'Castle'. Which prison cells located (usually) at the basement. Which itself 'multipurpose' building (or compounds). What it does in game is that it is 'Production and Influence building'. Did fortified hard labor penitary also existed in the middle ages anywhere? The only known use of penal labor was quite late medieval or even at the REAL Exploration Age (14th-15th Century)--galley slaves, which came out of absolute neccessity due to professional oarsmen shortages (and same shortages also spurred a different solution--more masts and the development of Real Sailers that eventually phased out galleys everywhere but closed waters).

The actual use of castles as prison came when big bombard guns can easily brought down castles and the most advanced city walls with ease, and that castles lost its purpose as fortifications and residence, soon enough it was repurposed as jails, (though multipurpose use still exists. in case of Bastille, where it was also a gunpowder storage, conveniently stored inside a prison cell.)

It is misnomer, and mis-designs. The actual name should be either 'Keep'. But this leads to localization problem since the term 'Donjon' (which in French means 'Keep' ) also existed as Norman UQ. The other name is blatantly Castle. and it should be spawning point. and a 'castle' can have asymmetric layouts to further distinguish from Norman Motte Keep. Production benefits still makes sense since a castle also houses workshops and training grounds to soldiers and troopers (knights). Also every castle has Dungeon as an integral part.
it should be abit more expensive, but also comes with free walls and counts as fortified districts.

And 'Armorer' should be renamed 'Workshops'.

 

[Krikkit1]

And Fast Forward to the Middle Ages (Age II. Basically the game can be divided into FOUR ages, with Feudal Age being the second, where Normans rightfully playable there. Age III should be Exploration (Where Spain shines. Though before 1500 the 'Spain' existed as so many kingdoms and principalities. then Castillia emerged and win other factions, and above out, drove Moors out of Andalusia / Iberia completely). Someone else has to be their forerunners, mmm Castillia or who else?)

There are generic 'Dungeons' as a generic building, built with the layout of modern prison with medieval cage to hold convicts and prison cells below. AFAIK 'Dungeons' as purpose built penitary facilityt did not existed yet. 'Dungeons' actually part of. or even it is by itself 'Castle'. Which prison cells located (usually) at the basement. Which itself 'multipurpose' building (or compounds). What it does in game is that it is 'Production and Influence building'. Did fortified hard labor penitary also existed in the middle ages anywhere? The only known use of penal labor was quite late medieval or even at the REAL Exploration Age (14th-15th Century)--galley slaves, which came out of absolute neccessity due to professional oarsmen shortages (and same shortages also spurred a different solution--more masts and the development of Real Sailers that eventually phased out galleys everywhere but closed waters).

The actual use of castles as prison came when big bombard guns can easily brought down castles and the most advanced city walls with ease, and that castles lost its purpose as fortifications and residence, soon enough it was repurposed as jails, (though multipurpose use still exists. in case of Bastille, where it was also a gunpowder storage, conveniently stored inside a prison cell.)

It is misnomer, and mis-designs. The actual name should be either 'Keep'. But this leads to localization problem since the term 'Donjon' (which in French means 'Keep' ) also existed as Norman UQ. The other name is blatantly Castle. and it should be spawning point. and a 'castle' can have asymmetric layouts to further distinguish from Norman Motte Keep. Production benefits still makes sense since a castle also houses workshops and training grounds to soldiers and troopers (knights). Also every castle has Dungeon as an integral part.
it should be abit more expensive, but also comes with free walls and counts as fortified districts.

And 'Armorer' should be renamed 'Workshops'.

I can justify the Dungeon=Production, not as penal labor... but the Dungeon is where you end up if you don't work.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ but i don't think a purpose built jailhouses existed in the middle ages. these are actually built in parts of either magistracy buildings/ compounds, or a castle. (Joan of Arc was held somewhere in Rouen, these were described as either 'Keep, Castle, or Dungeon'. but not one described as 'Joan of Arc tower'. which had been a site of Capitol Buildong of Normandy. (or possibly the place where William The Conqueror had been lording over, before he and his invasion forces sailed to England in 11th Century).

As a castle. it might have workshop.

 

[Krikkit1]

^ but i don't think a purpose built jailhouses existed in the middle ages. these are actually built in parts of either magistracy buildings/ compounds, or a castle. (Joan of Arc was held somewhere in Rouen, these were described as either 'Keep, Castle, or Dungeon'. but not one described as 'Joan of Arc tower'. which had been a site of Capitol Buildong of Normandy. (or possibly the place where William The Conqueror had been lording over, before he and his invasion forces sailed to England in 11th Century).

As a castle. it might have workshop.

I do agree changing the name to Castle and adding Fortification would fit it more nicely.