1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Most OP building - Walls

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Pistol90, Mar 7, 2020.

  1. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,744
    Location:
    Toronto
    You would certainly have to rebalance a lot of items if you were to do that. Perhaps the real change to urban defenses would be multi-fold - instead of using walls to defend the city-centre, suddenly every district of a city gains a defensive strength and would have to be individually sieged/taken. You wouldn't give them each a city attack, but it would certainly make things interesting if you couldn't just park your tank on an opponents' campus district to siege the main city, you might potentially have to battle to take that campus, then once you have secured that, refocus to target the inner commerce hub and city centre to gain control of the city. Although I'm no expert on warfare to know if that's more or less anachronistic, although it would give a sort of natural way that districts get pillaged in war.
     
  2. criZp

    criZp Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    Messages:
    1,882
    Location:
    Nidaros, Norway
    if anything is OP it's warfare, and level 2/3 walls should be cheaper.
     
  3. Denkt

    Denkt Left Forever

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    Messages:
    3,944
    Warfare is overpowered because it is a one time cost. It don't cost anything to heal military units and upgrading them is very cheap. Also captured cities are as good as your own and the diplomatic penalty don't seems to matter much or at all and if you can conquer one ai, you can probably conquer them all.
     
    Time Tested, lotrmith and Jkchart like this.
  4. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,051
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    What is displayed, as in the rate that the bar moves as you damage it?

    I think this is reasonably accurate. Few cities ever had walls that encompassed the entire city as they would continue to grow, and your wall doesn't without a huge expense. You'd have part of the town inside the walls but often people retreated to the fortified part when an enemy army approached abandoning the rest.
    As to immersion it helps to think that the district is different to how they portray it. The way they show it with the specialist buildings being all there, is there to make it easy for you to tell what is what just by appearance. But your people would live in those places (I mean before the suburb district where do you think they're all living?) and for instance there'd be shops in all districts, not just the Commercial Hub. I think of the Commercial Hub as the biggest market in the city, but that doesn't mean there aren't others elsewhere etc.
     
  5. Sostratus

    Sostratus Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2017
    Messages:
    2,367
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Walls getting upgrades is a nice concept, but you should really be able to just directly build the best level of wall. Ditto for urban defenses.
    I posted earlier about how I'd much rather see walls have fixed combat stats so you had to upgrade them - IE a medieval wall has 45 strength but renaissance defenses have 55, so that simply being out of date is one way around it. (likewise for their ranged attacks.) I also think wall resistance should be different for different wall levels. I'd have to check how the modifiers are applied, but it might be possible to actually split that up via a mod so that urban defenses are far less resistive.
    Since wall resist really is just a way to make walls more vulnerable to siege units, there's no reason we cannot just say "these walls have low HP but really high resist, requiring era appropriate siege" and "these urban defenses have high HP but mediocre resist, making them more vulnerable to general purpose assault while still giving siege an edge." I have no real issue with a modern era city getting mobbed by a handful of infantry corps. At some point, you need to have a defensive army to counter an attacking one.

    I am 99% sure in pre release images of the vanilla game, communism had a bonus of "industrial zones can defend," which if implemented now would be absolutely insane. Welcome to Comrade Meier's meat grinder...
     
  6. Bibor

    Bibor Doomsday Machine

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Historically, permanent fortifications like city walls were extremely expensive to build and maintain. Most sieges were also unsuccessful, and had to be lifted, either because of lack of logistical support, low morale or disease. As siege weapons changed, so did fortifications, up to this very day. So yes, city walls et cetera are very realistic and you should be ready for losses. Great generals help tremendously here, as ranged siege units can "move in" and shoot on the same turn.

    City walls by themselves are "easily" brought down if the player also doesn't have a strong garrison, as well as a strong melee unit to boost overall city defenses across the empire.

    Excluding all other factors, 3 swordsmen can easily bring down a "vanilla" ancient walls that didn't get boosted by a melee unit or other bonuses like capital and/or districts, even when considering a garrison archer, which is still within the well known "bring 3x the strength for offense" reasoning.
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2020
    The Civs 6 and nzcamel like this.
  7. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,551
    Ancient walls pretty much never need to be upgraded. Rams might be the only thing to make the prospect compelling, but they can be waited out most of the time.
     
  8. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,877
    Well one problem with Walls is that you must build them in the city that is going to be attacked, and that may be an entirely wasted effort. In this sense, they need to be worth a lot! So if the Walls will fall behind, then they'd have to be quicker to build, so that they instead become a temporary thing...which seems weird thematically.

    The defenders in the walls get stronger along with the attacker, which makes sense thematically. Really, Sieges need to slowly drain health from the city, or cause automatic starvation, or something. The point of the walls is to delay long enough for you to raise an army and bring it over to break the Siege. If you want to damage the Walls (and thus take the city faster) you need special units of some sort.

    If a Siege could do, like, 10% of the city's HP each turn (on Standard), that might be fine.

    And yeah, Communism had that ability in the base game, not just pre-release.
     
    Depravo likes this.
  9. Oberinspektor Derrick

    Oberinspektor Derrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2020
    Messages:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    See, this is the problem I have with walls in civ 6.
    It's not that it's not possible to take walled cities, but it's that this game enforces this exact and very stale domination meta.
    I'm sick of having these very repetitive games that follow the same recipe: Quick ancient era rush before walls, long mid-game slog as everyone is walled up and siege units are often not quite up to the task against certain cities, before the blitzing resumes once Flight (balloons) and Advanced Flight (bombers) gets teched.
    It really kills the enjoyment of this game for me when I mostly know how the course of the game is going to play out, several thousand years in advance.

    Civ 5 at least had stuff like +1 range and indirect fire upgrades for siege units which helped a lot in taking down cities in any era, even if the strongest cities had ridiculous amounts of HP to begin with and the damage was very minor.
    I quite liked that personally.
     
  10. FinalDoomsday

    FinalDoomsday Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Maldon, Essex
    I'd like to see walls lose their ranged attack or have it reduced to 1 range. Walls should not innately grant offensive ability, stick an archer in there if you want to harass attackers.
     
  11. Myomoto

    Myomoto King

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2013
    Messages:
    610
    I mainly agree with the arguments, cities are in my opinion way too difficult to capture.

    The problem comes more in the general game balance. Domination is already the easiest and most effective strategy. Producing a few units in the early game that can be used to take out 1 or 2 AI opponents is crazy good return on investment - easily the best in the game.

    If taking cities becomes easier, this return on investment just becomes even better.

    My opinion has always been that it should consume 1 citizen to produce a military unit, which could be returned when retiring the unit in the city (obviously production costs should be much reduced then). Buying units with gold could potentially bypass this as you're hiring 'mercenaries'.

    Your actions in the game are generally limited based on your citizen count (tiles that can be worked), but a big exception is the military layer where you can just pump out unit after unit. This can grossly inflate your interaction space vastly beyond what your citizen count normally would allow, especially when you start taking cities away from other players and add them to your cities.
     
  12. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,131
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea but none of that has to do with walls.

    The main problem is that siege is pathetically weak and there is no melee unit between pikes and muskets. You can have 50 str cities even without walls but catapults are made of tissue paper.

    I would also nerf crossbows and buff catapults. Crossbows also make it a problem.

    As for repetitive games; tbh that sounds like a player thing. For example, you can play Ottomans and easily negate walls, attack from the sea, or stack crusade/ggs/military alliance/spies to war vs walls. You also don't have to capture the cities either; can flip them via loyalty or pillage which is often just as good.

    I think when people say the game is repetitive, that's because they've already convinced themselves on the best way to play, and never bother to change any settings and stuff. When people can beat Deity on 1 city, or always conquer the map by t200, I really don't want to hear about only playing one way. If you think war is too mandatory, play bigger maps, or stop playing on continents/Pangaea.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2021
  13. Depravo

    Depravo Siring Bastards

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,317
    Location:
    England
    Walls and civil defences should have an attack range of 1, and if the city is under siege as currently defined, should lose ranged attack altogether.

    A related problem is the 'Limes' policy card offers, for buildings, the biggest production cost discount of any policy in the game, and it's empire-wide. Situationally, that's ludicrously OP. Perhaps 'Limes' could be redone to assist city ranged attacks, and the 'Bastions' policy, which I've never even considered slotting, could come with the ability to allow besieged cities to retain their attack capability?
     
  14. greenOak

    greenOak Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    And then there’s me who wishes the AI started with ancient walls just like city states. One of the things I like about civ 6 is that warmongering actually has significant opportunity cost. The best route to non domination victories does not necessarily involve conquering your neighbor ASAP. It’s true the AI can’t win domination (or anything non science), but nerfing walls to make conquest cheaper is not the answer.
     
  15. civac

    civac Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    239
    Warfare always has significant opportunity cost.

    Also it is not necessary to make overpowered walls to keep AIs alive. A deity AI (in particular) should be able to fend off attacks with its endless hordes of units.
     
  16. jasper

    jasper Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2001
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    USA
    From a gaming perspective

    Advancing through tech should slowly push attacking over the hump and i think nukes and gdr do just that. The juicy game winning stuff for all win conditions should come at the end of the tech or culture tree. People shouldnt get all the tools theey need to win domination at an early age.

    I also think people under estimate the value of taking a city. Conquering a city is not just territory or a stat boost to science, culture, gold etc. You are simultaeously hampering an opponents effectiveness. So long as the defender dont get greedy, It should be very difficult to take a city.

    100 bucks says if these proposed wall nerfs went live, people would be complaining the game too easy and they can just win in medieval by smashing their knights faces into city walls repeatedly. That there is no need for later age units since you can tko the world with horse technology before hand.
     
  17. Pistol90

    Pistol90 Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2017
    Messages:
    303
    Gender:
    Male
    Conquering city should make diplomatic, loyalty and happines chalenging, not military.
     
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  18. Oldlamehand

    Oldlamehand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    87
    Conquering a fortified city should be a military challenge. I think the walls are ok . In addition, on most maps, I can conquer a few opponents before they have the opportunity to build walls. I play king level, so I don't know how difficult it is at harder levels.
    But I guess the developers are trying to balance the difficulty for the prince / king levels and the harder levels are mainly for hardcore gamers.
     
  19. Oberinspektor Derrick

    Oberinspektor Derrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2020
    Messages:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    Now this is an answer I was quite disappointed to read, which is blaming it on the player (me in this case).

    I could play Ottomans and Byzantium every time to negate walls, but again, the meta is not really changed.
    The other civs still need to contend with this nonsense, and I'd be limiting myself even further just to get around the already stale meta.

    Yes I can flip cities via loyalty, but I explicitly mentioned a "mid-game slog", and capturing cities through loyalty is definitely a slog.
    Heck, in all my hundreds of hours (thousands more likely, without checking) playing civ 6, taking cities through loyalty is rarely an option that presents itself unless I set it up very deliberately, and then it usually takes a long time involving a lot of factors that have to go right (if it even possible in the first place, some cities have innately too much loyalty to start flipping).

    I do play big maps, I usually take the biggest ones with 10 or 12 players whenever I play.
    And yes, I do tend to play continents/pangea, because sea-based maps tend to be ridiculously easy to beat and excruciatingly boring once I get the sea based domination going.

    I also never said war is mandatory, never.
    I usually play peacefully as I think the variation is the greatest there (and civ 6 is well executed there for the most part), but I do like to mix it up occasionally with a domination game.
    But the meta that those walls induce is very, very boring to me, and walls are the main culprit behind this.
    Nothing slows down the domination game like seeing walls everywhere and not having adequate tools to deal with them (note, I'm not saying there are no tools or that they do not work, but that the tools given are comparatively lackluster to civ 5).

    I stand by my original post praising civ 5 in that department, the game felt overall a lot less stale.
    And that is not due to "lacking a melee unit between pikes and muskets", but rather because walls in civ 5 had no innate hidden resistances, while siege/ranged units at the same time had the option to go for +1 range and indirect fire.
    Which I much preferred compared to how civ 6 buffed the hell out of walls.

    And speaking of civ 5, yes that game got very stale in the end as well, with the 3-4 tall city Tradition meta that evolved near the final xpac.
    You could play differently, but you were usually just gimping yourself on purpose.
    Walls in civ 6 are the "3-4 city Tradition" of civ 5, and both kill the enjoyment for me in the long run.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
    Hellenism Salesman likes this.
  20. Oberinspektor Derrick

    Oberinspektor Derrick Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2020
    Messages:
    246
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't necessarily mind that cities are hard to take either, but it's the consistency of it throughout the game, which is solely due to walls entering as a factor.
    Cities are a joke to take down in an Ancient Era rush, and a joke to take down in a late-game bomber/balloon/tank blitz.
    If the difficulty of taking a city was more evenly spread out across eras, I wouldn't mind nearly as much.
     
    Depravo likes this.

Share This Page