Most OP building - Walls

[Mahi]

The only times a wall becomes a challenge against an AI is when you are limitied in how many units you can get to attack the city per turn. If you only have three-four tiles you can place attacking units on, and the enemy has proper ranged units placed in/around the city it does indeed become hard, and sometimes impossible to take the city. And that is how it should be. Sometimes you actually need better tech to be able to take a city on difficult locations.
A city wall on open landscape almost does nothing for a defense in my experience. Most of the times you just need to focus on the enemy's ranged units (and or mounted units) and kill them before you focus on bringing down the wall.
I've noticed the AI seem to has become a bit better in placing encampments in places that makes strategically good sense but in many cases they fail to place a ranged unit in it, when being attacked, which is a shame. I do like encampments for the sake of giving the AI a better chance of defense. I defenitely don't find walls OP, when it comes to the AI. It's more the other way around, where the player becomes OP ones he gets wall. The extra ranged shot against a dumb AI is often turned into a pure meat grinder, where you can hold of a huge army with a single ranged unit and a wall.

 

[Tech Osen]

I would say it was probably easier to take a city then than it was during WW2 and after. Right now taking cities gets easier once you get balloons/artillery and bombers as mentioned above.

It's easier because the AI can't field a proper defense. When it, by sheer luck/coincidence has a battleship or destroyer in the city those air attacks become a lot less effective, yet they still never build the AA support units. Fighters and bombers could make quick work of your artillery and even heavy cavalry. I had Alexander actually properly using a couple of fighters the other day. Unfortunately for him I already had jet fighters but he forced me to use them to cover my ground troops. Makes for a whole different fight.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Once you have balloons your artillery can take down walls with impunity. Coastal cities are toast once you get battleships. And bombers are I-win buttons. There is plenty amiss with the late game but walls shouldn't be an issue.

LOL... I WIN BUTTONS

Honestly though, I usually only build one wall for the boost.
Maybe 2 or 3 if I am in early trouble.
I just wait for Civil Engineering.
I think it works with Steel too... which one is faster??

 

[Tech Osen]

I just wait for Civil Engineering.
I think it works with Steel too... which one is faster??

It used to come with Civil Engineering, nowadays it comes with Steel.

 

[Pistol90]

I played a lot of Civ in past month (being trapped in house), and this issues with walls is even more problematic than I prevously thought. There is NO CHANCE for AI to capture cities in industrial era (or later) with encampment and walls. You could give all armys of the entire world to the AI he will be not able to capture city. Even I as human have mayor problems, you need to hit encampment walls for couple decades to bringh it down, and then city walls come. And that is just for ONE city. If history was Civ siege of Constantinople will still be undergoing, and Turks would need few more artillery attack to bring those walls down.

How QA department is unable to see this is totally beyond me. Late game is boring enough, and then you cement it with walls that are stronger than anything else in game.

And please don say you have options like bombers or something, you need entire era to unlock them, they some time to build them, and even they need 4-5 bombing runs to destroy walls. Not to say AI doesn even know how to build them, not to speak about using them.

 

[Sostratus]

And please don say you have options like bombers or something, you need entire era to unlock them, they some time to build them, and even they need 4-5 bombing runs to destroy walls. Not to say AI doesn even know how to build them, not to speak about using them.

The only difference between urban defenses and other walls it he HP. The best thing you can do is get your units combat strength as close to the city's as possible.
You need to really be aggressive about getting your units upgraded to Corps and Armies. Bombard Armies aren't bad siege units in a pinch, especially if they have the promotion to boost district damage & you bring an observation balloon.
Artillery units themselves are great. But even field cannon armies and cuirassier armies can work if you have no oil in the modern era. (As I said previously in this thread, ranged units suffer less of a penalty than melee units at the end of the day.)
Don't forget about your navy either; naval ranged units like the frigate or Battleship still get hit with wall resistance, but unlike land ranged units there is no -17 penalty vs fortifications, so they pull more weight than you would think; and they get a promotion to help.

 

[nzcamel]

Is this really how it was in history though? This is my problem with walls. Cities were sieged and taken many times throughout classical, medieval, and renaissance ages. I would say it was probably easier to take a city then than it was during WW2 and after.

It is very much how it was in history. Even with siege engines some city walls were solid enough to withstand bombardment for a long enough time for another army to come rescue the city. Without them, starving the enemy out/hoping someone betrayed them and let you in was the only way you were going to win.

It is odd that putting up ancient walls means having defense that improves and improves over time, both growing in defense and ranged-attack strength, and yet the means for breaching walls--rams and towers--have short lifespans.

The walls need upgrading like the units do...

I despise the way encampments and walls work together to make the encampment unassailable to ranged or melee units. What the heck is happening there? Why does attacking it inflict piddling single-digits of damage, even when its combat strength is 10 or more less than the unit attacking it.

If nothing, units should be able to bust an encampment with greater ease than a city.

Right, and encampments further complicate things, because they're so resistant that they should simply never be attacked. Given that it's best to ignore it and attack the city directly, it might as well be rendered invulnerable so players aren't even tempted to pick at it (or grind it for XP).

I agree it's odd that encampments are usually stronger than the city itself.

 

[Victoria]

This is a weird thread, a lot of posts have been removed.

d they get a promotion to help.

2 promotions for +17.

I agree it's odd that encampments are usually stronger than the city itself.

? I am confused.
There is a bug in this area with what is displayed but attacking should provide the same defensive value. The only difference between the two is the encampment has a smaller garrison.

 

[Uberfrog]

I must have missed this thread first time around, but thanks @Sostratus for spelling out the melee resistance of walls. This was something I’d internalised (“gee walls are strong”) without properly understanding!

It’s particularly frustrating how the resistance survives without reinvestment. You can throw up Ancient walls and call the job a good’un, because the defensive combat strength scales with your land units. For the more awkward city locations where it’s hard to get bombard units in place, the most basic walls remain very powerful throughout the mid-game.

In reality city walls required expensive maintenance and extensions as they needed to protect new areas of the expanding settlement. The citizens would frequently have to pay a murage or similar tax solely for their construction/upkeep.

I think in order to keep providing their resistance to Renaissance era infantry, you should have to upgrade to Renaissance walls... for which at present there isn’t really any reason to invest in their production.

 

[Tech Osen]

I think in order to keep providing their resistance to Renaissance era infantry, you should have to upgrade to Renaissance walls... for which at present there isn’t really any reason to invest in their production.

Battering rams only work on ancient walls and siege towers on ancient and medieval walls.

 

[Abaxial]

If you think about it, in Civ 6 walls only surround the city centre. If a city has several districts, those districts are really part of the city, and this particularly applies if you take walls to represent not big stone fortifications, but more general fortifications, pill-boxes etc. Think of Stalingrad, for instance. This is a problem with the whole district mechanic. One ends up with complete urbanisation and hardly any countryside. OK, there are megacities in the real world, but I don't think the urban/rural balance is as extreme as in Civ 6.

 

[criZp]

If you think about it, in Civ 6 walls only surround the city centre. If a city has several districts, those districts are really part of the city, and this particularly applies if you take walls to represent not big stone fortifications, but more general fortifications, pill-boxes etc. Think of Stalingrad, for instance. This is a problem with the whole district mechanic. One ends up with complete urbanisation and hardly any countryside. OK, there are megacities in the real world, but I don't think the urban/rural balance is as extreme as in Civ 6.

I would have preferred if districts had to be placed next to the city center or next to two other districts of that city, this would have made the cities much more cohesive. It would mean that adjacencies would need a rethink, but I still would prefer it this way.

 

[Bangau]

I've never experienced an issue with walls. Yes, they get strong late game, but every time I've done a full blown domination game by the time walls become this strong (steel) you are close to (or already have) the means to take them down. Corps, armies, observation balloons, airplanes, etc. Depending on your timing, there might be a few turns where they slow down your conquest, but if you go domination you are probably bee-lining techs like flight to gain advantage over your enemies. The way I see them, in the late game they don't physically represent 'walls', but rather city defenses.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The question is why the ai don't build battering rams/siege Towers, if they did they could do alot better, than right now. I do dislike the free urban defence, consider how much you need to pay to get to renaissance wall, but with steel you get even better walls for free in every city which I don't think make much sense and is a reason to ignore walls, since eventually you get better walls for free anyway.

I think urban defence should just be level 4 walls which you need to build like every other walls, it would be much more balanced that way.

 

[Bangau]

reason to ignore walls

I only build them for tourism.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I only build them for tourism.

Yes I have seen people do that, not sure how worthwhile it is given the price of walls per tourism, well you do get +100% production and throw in monarchy for housing and it may look somewhat worthwhile for non defence purpose.

 

[Pistol90]

What I was saying is "AI is unable to capture cities with walls + encampment in late game". Human player can do it, even though it is ridiculously hard, but AI cant do it. So you end up in game where if you survive early game you are 100% sure AI wont be able to take either your or other AI cities in late game (because AI builds walls + encampment like crazy in every city).

You are playing for domination victory, but has anyone seen AI been able to achive that victory on Standard map. No, and never will be --- because after reneisansce era game over, no AI is able to capture cities because walls are more powerful than any armies.

 

[Bangau]

not sure how worthwhile it is given the price of walls per tourism

Best case you have the resolution giving +100% to city center buildings + the +100% to walls policy card. In this scenario it will take only a few turns even for renaissance walls. Without the resolution it can still be worthwhile in cities with high production.

has anyone seen AI been able to achieve that victory on Standard map. No, and never will be

This is very true, and one of my biggest disappointments with the game. The AI just isn't programmed to win. Best I've ever seen an AI do is conquer two neighbors by mid-game. Walls aren't the issue though, I think, the AI could easily be instructed to take them down with e.g. bombers and siege weapons assisted by balloons. It's just not in their rule-set.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think these Changes are need:

• Urban defence is changed to become a level 4 walls that need to be built, rather than free
• Add a battering ram for renaissance and urban defence or make military engineers act as battering rams against all walls, or allow them to spend a charge on sapping which would remove the much or all wall hp.
• Make the ai build battering rams of the correct era

 

[Pistol90]

I agree it would be better if AI is just "smart", but its less likely to be. But easy (and even realistic solution) is just make walls not to give any defensive bonus in indrustrial era and beyond. You would be crazy to defend cities in modern era standing on some kind of wall --- you are prime target for artilery and air attack, so not just walls have no place in modern era city defense but they would be minus if someone would be crazy enough to try defend city in that way.

Make walls not a factor in modern warfare would produce much more dynamic map in late game, AI would be able to declare war, win it (conquer enough cities) --- and than using tourism or science gained in those cities to maybe chalange your path to victory. That would mean also that I as human player would need to be involved much more in world affeirs in late game to prevent that happening, and not just cliclik next-turn-next-turn-next-ture.