kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,577
It's mind blowing that after all this time, they still haven't tweaked rams. I agree fully with this, btw.
Should walls be nerfed?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
I might nerf ancient walls a bit, and buff the rest.
Melee units in the city should not reduce wall damage (indirectly, by increasing the city strength)
Also AI would really needs to learn to use rams and siege towers.
I agree that trebuchet would fit well between catapults and mortars.
Artillery should still need niter imho, and not oil, but I understand the balance reason.
Melee units in the city should not reduce wall damage (indirectly, by increasing the city strength)
Also AI would really needs to learn to use rams and siege towers.
I agree that trebuchet would fit well between catapults and mortars.
Artillery should still need niter imho, and not oil, but I understand the balance reason.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I invite people to view "nerf walls" as an object rather than a demand/request
On one hand, anything that makes it harder for the human to just steamroll the map is okay in my book. But perhaps people are right in saying that the problem with other levels of walls is that ancient is good enough.
On one hand, anything that makes it harder for the human to just steamroll the map is okay in my book. But perhaps people are right in saying that the problem with other levels of walls is that ancient is good enough.
Last edited:
IV had this if the player had the emancipation civic. If the city was razed, then the city would spawn melee/gunpowder units from the ruins, which if you're unprepared and raze a giant city, civilians turning their trucks into APCs and getting out their machine guns as mech infantry is actually pretty scary and not something you can really prepare for...it was a cool little feature.
comatosedragon
Emperor
No, walls should not be nerfed. Maybe take away the tourism and make them cheaper to build, but that's it.
I mean...a bit cheaper yes. But the tourism effect can stay. I've been to cities in Europe that are still walled as tourist attractions. Makes total sense.
comatosedragon
Emperor
Yeah, I thought about that and it does makes sense. I guess I should have clarified and said remove the tourism from ancient walls. I think the tourism should just come form Medieval Walls and forward; that makes sense as a tourist attraction to me.
iammaxhailme
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,999
All walls should cost 50% less to build and also give an immediate non-defense bonus, such as housing (and change Monarchy's bonus to something that makes more sense).
However, wall's strength should also be reduced.
However, wall's strength should also be reduced.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
What are amenities? They are the happiness of the city. What would make the city happier than walls? (Ignoring the movie The Devils).
If walls gave amenity the AI would probably build them faster.
Rams were quite specific to the castle gate so I really have no idea why all units around a city get a Ram advantage, probably ease.
Thanks for the unit clarification @Infixo , that explains all these stupid catapults, just another FF (Firaxis Fail)
I really think a Ram should give +1 to the attack and ancient walls get +1
Towers give +5 to the attack and medieval walls get +5
Renaissance walls get +10 and mortars give +10 to the attack
Butch then we all have different ideas I guess.
If walls gave amenity the AI would probably build them faster.
Rams were quite specific to the castle gate so I really have no idea why all units around a city get a Ram advantage, probably ease.
Thanks for the unit clarification @Infixo , that explains all these stupid catapults, just another FF (Firaxis Fail)
I really think a Ram should give +1 to the attack and ancient walls get +1
Towers give +5 to the attack and medieval walls get +5
Renaissance walls get +10 and mortars give +10 to the attack
Butch then we all have different ideas I guess.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
I keep trying to think of some sort of commerce bonus too, giving protection to the countryfolk who come into town to sell their wares
iammaxhailme
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,999
How about Traders can't be pillaged within 3 tiles of ancient walls, 5 tiles of medieval walls, 9 tiles of renaissance walls?
Or something along those lines. Yeah it doesn't make perfect sense I guess, but whatever.
Maybe limit this to only barbarians, or only if the walls are at full health
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
To me that is amenities
They also should have a city centre police station that gives amenities later.
FenrisWolf456
Chieftain
Maybe I'm not following, but shouldn't the tech of your defenses match with that of your offense (units)?
Look for the Steel and Thunder mod. Not sure if it's the same modder, but it effectively replaces MOAR units. It has the trebuchet and for that alone the mod is a must have for me. I still don't understand why this glaring gap is there. Catapults are already fairly fragile again ancient walls, and it's a long wait until bombards come around.
There is also a Unique Unit mod in the 'series' that adds an extra unique unit to every civ. As well, there is a R.E.D. mod for the more unit mod if you use those for the regular units.
While Medieval and Renaissance walls are usually more impressive, there is certainly a tourism industry for viewing ancient historic sites.
Kaan Boztepe
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2018
- Messages
- 407
walls are much better now and they do protect the city states a lot better. i actually have time to react and protect them instead of the earlier versions where even the AI steam rolled them.
If someone has the time and production to build renaissance walls , good for them. i prefer pillaging the country side anyway
If someone has the time and production to build renaissance walls , good for them. i prefer pillaging the country side anyway
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
City Walls and Amenities:
The earliest cities (Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Uruk, etc) were all walled: pretty obvious that the city wall was one of the defining fixtures of a city.
Commerce and City Walls.
In Medieval Germany, at least, the definition of a 'town' versus a 'village' was that a town had at east a simple curtain wall around it. This might not even be much of a military barrier, but it kept people with carts or pack animals loaded with goods from 'sneaking' into the town to Trade - consequently it is sometimes referred to as a 'tax wall'. So, basically, All cities. almost by definition, will have some kind of control over the trade/commerce coming into the city, even if they don't have a tall, fat 'military' wall.
Battering Rams
Assuming this includes all the various 'engines' that attacked barriers at close range, versus catapults that attacked from a distance and Siege Towers that tried to go over them, then they include types that attack the walls as well as the gates: some of the earliest Assyrian reliefs showing siege equipment also shows them picking or battering at the walls of a city (picking was more effective at digging through mud brick or brick, which had generally too much flexibility to batter your way through them). It would be appropriate to make them less effective or even ineffective against Medieval Walls, since with the projecting towers, rounded surfaces, and other counters Battering Rams didn't get you through the walls or the gates much any more.
That same relationship applies to Medieval Walls, Renaissance Walls and Bombards though. The Bombard made the classic towering, towered medieval wall obsolete instantly: a Bombard could shatter the stone walls to bits in a few days and the medieval walls weren't wide and sturdy enough to mount cannon that could shoot back effectively. Thus, the counter was the 'Renaissance Wall' - lower, earthen works faced with stone (sometimes) that mounted increasing numbers of cannon of their own and had wide scarps, counterscarps, bastions, ravelins, and other outlying works to keep enemy infantry and guns away from the walls. Vauban's 'parallel' siege works were the counter to all this, and Vauban was so good at it he could predict to the day when a city would have to surrender once he started his men digging.
So, leaving the numerical experts to diddle with the exact figures, here are the relationships:
Ancient Walls: very difficult and expensive for unprepared troops to get through them, but very vulnerable to Siege Towers or Battering Rams. Probably about right as they are now. You want to take a city quickly, come prepared or stay away.
Medieval Walls: practically impervious to Battering Rams but with Military Engineers you can undermine them: expensive, especially if the defenders include good (read: Upgraded) troops. There's a reason cities didn't change hands much in the Middle Ages in Europe: the defense was well ahead of the attack when i came to the fortifications.
Bombard: Massively effective against Ancient and Medieval Walls. Against a smaller city, practically (in Game Terms) One Shot the defenses.
Renaissance Walls: Massively expensive to build - there's a good reason for the rise of international banking families about the same time, because city and national governments all over Europe had to borrow to the hilt to afford the new defenses. On the other hand, since they included cannon and firing points of their own, the Ranged Fire from these should be really nasty. - also should require Maintenance of both Gold and Niter, and without the Niter the Ranged Fire factor is cut in half.
Addition: We need an Upgrade or Promotion or new Support Unit in the late Renaissance representing the Siege Train or Professional Military Engineer Officer, who largely negates the Renaissance Wall, but perhaps takes a turn or more to Set Up - Vauban's sieges were virtually all successful, but they took time.
Starting in the Industrial Era there was another type of city fortification in the Detached Fort, complete with iron or steel cupolas holding long range cannon and using, eventually, machine-guns and mines and barbed wire to cover the 'intervals' between the forts. I think these would better be modeled with an 'Improvement' of a greatly increased 'Fort' which, like the Renaissance Walls, has a Ranged Factor and Maintenance Cost, but doesn't require a separate Unit garrison to be effective, like a city wall. These were also extremely expensive (like, require Iron to build them), but they would represent the Forts that ringed Paris and covered a large part of the borders of Belgium and France. They were too expensive for most states to build much of them, but the Soviet Union's Sevastopol Naval Fortress in 1941, which included Battleship-sized naval guns in steel turrets on 100 foot deep concrete bastions is a good example of the 'last gasp' of this type of Defense, along with, of course, the infamous Maginot Line.
The earliest cities (Jericho, Catal Huyuk, Uruk, etc) were all walled: pretty obvious that the city wall was one of the defining fixtures of a city.
Commerce and City Walls.
In Medieval Germany, at least, the definition of a 'town' versus a 'village' was that a town had at east a simple curtain wall around it. This might not even be much of a military barrier, but it kept people with carts or pack animals loaded with goods from 'sneaking' into the town to Trade - consequently it is sometimes referred to as a 'tax wall'. So, basically, All cities. almost by definition, will have some kind of control over the trade/commerce coming into the city, even if they don't have a tall, fat 'military' wall.
Battering Rams
Assuming this includes all the various 'engines' that attacked barriers at close range, versus catapults that attacked from a distance and Siege Towers that tried to go over them, then they include types that attack the walls as well as the gates: some of the earliest Assyrian reliefs showing siege equipment also shows them picking or battering at the walls of a city (picking was more effective at digging through mud brick or brick, which had generally too much flexibility to batter your way through them). It would be appropriate to make them less effective or even ineffective against Medieval Walls, since with the projecting towers, rounded surfaces, and other counters Battering Rams didn't get you through the walls or the gates much any more.
That same relationship applies to Medieval Walls, Renaissance Walls and Bombards though. The Bombard made the classic towering, towered medieval wall obsolete instantly: a Bombard could shatter the stone walls to bits in a few days and the medieval walls weren't wide and sturdy enough to mount cannon that could shoot back effectively. Thus, the counter was the 'Renaissance Wall' - lower, earthen works faced with stone (sometimes) that mounted increasing numbers of cannon of their own and had wide scarps, counterscarps, bastions, ravelins, and other outlying works to keep enemy infantry and guns away from the walls. Vauban's 'parallel' siege works were the counter to all this, and Vauban was so good at it he could predict to the day when a city would have to surrender once he started his men digging.
So, leaving the numerical experts to diddle with the exact figures, here are the relationships:
Ancient Walls: very difficult and expensive for unprepared troops to get through them, but very vulnerable to Siege Towers or Battering Rams. Probably about right as they are now. You want to take a city quickly, come prepared or stay away.
Medieval Walls: practically impervious to Battering Rams but with Military Engineers you can undermine them: expensive, especially if the defenders include good (read: Upgraded) troops. There's a reason cities didn't change hands much in the Middle Ages in Europe: the defense was well ahead of the attack when i came to the fortifications.
Bombard: Massively effective against Ancient and Medieval Walls. Against a smaller city, practically (in Game Terms) One Shot the defenses.
Renaissance Walls: Massively expensive to build - there's a good reason for the rise of international banking families about the same time, because city and national governments all over Europe had to borrow to the hilt to afford the new defenses. On the other hand, since they included cannon and firing points of their own, the Ranged Fire from these should be really nasty. - also should require Maintenance of both Gold and Niter, and without the Niter the Ranged Fire factor is cut in half.
Addition: We need an Upgrade or Promotion or new Support Unit in the late Renaissance representing the Siege Train or Professional Military Engineer Officer, who largely negates the Renaissance Wall, but perhaps takes a turn or more to Set Up - Vauban's sieges were virtually all successful, but they took time.
Starting in the Industrial Era there was another type of city fortification in the Detached Fort, complete with iron or steel cupolas holding long range cannon and using, eventually, machine-guns and mines and barbed wire to cover the 'intervals' between the forts. I think these would better be modeled with an 'Improvement' of a greatly increased 'Fort' which, like the Renaissance Walls, has a Ranged Factor and Maintenance Cost, but doesn't require a separate Unit garrison to be effective, like a city wall. These were also extremely expensive (like, require Iron to build them), but they would represent the Forts that ringed Paris and covered a large part of the borders of Belgium and France. They were too expensive for most states to build much of them, but the Soviet Union's Sevastopol Naval Fortress in 1941, which included Battleship-sized naval guns in steel turrets on 100 foot deep concrete bastions is a good example of the 'last gasp' of this type of Defense, along with, of course, the infamous Maginot Line.
Sostratus
Deity
As it stands, since pretty much only players use rams, the surgical option is to just nerf rams if players should have it harder taking AI cities. Catapults are very pricey investment and the AI knows to focus fire siege units.
The AI doesn't seem to have much issue taking other Ai cities. We may want to make CS live longer, but that could be controlled by AI behavior instead of combat.
We don't want to make cities too strong because they intentionally tried to move away from civ5 where cities were the only part of the map that mattered in war, because they were so tough.
Units in the classical/medieval/renaissance have strengths that go like this:
35/45/55
This means that any city in one of those eras has a base strength that matches the units of that era (since you've built them) without you having to invest in anything beyond ancient walls, if that.
Instead, city defense can be linked to the level of wall by making walls effectively units. IE, take the unit strength of the era, and add X to it (currently the game has this setup to be roughly, +5. We could make it 0, or 10, or -5, or anything we want.)
Example numbers:
No walls/walls destroyed and no garrison: 30 str
Ancient Walls: 40 wall strength, 30 ranged strike, 50 HP
Medieval Walls: 50 wall strength, 40 ranged strike, 100HP
Renaissance Walls: 60 wall strength, 50 ranged strike, 150 HP
Urban defenses: 70 wall strength, 60 ranged strike, 200 HP
Since you know the strength of the units the walls will be facing in any era, you can just make the walls match them. If you want to be able to fend off progressively superior siege engines, you have to build better walls. I think if you did this you would need to tweak walls a little so a city could build the highest level straightaway (and of course, they could stand to be cheaper generally. Poor Georgia.) Now it's up to us what to do with the city itself once the walls are down. Perhaps the garrison rule could be that the city itself (again, not the walls, just the city) becomes at least as strong as the garrison unit's melee strength. I mean, then it's consistent with what happens when you fight a unit in a district.
Castles didn't kill armies. They created time for the defenders. Currently cities already have 200HP base, plus melee attacks do less (half?) damage without a ram, and ranged units do half damage. They are very very tough when their innate strength matches unit strength.
EDIT: if you don't have any form of defenses or garrison, I don't think there is any reason that cities should still be hard to take. It's not like the local sheriff is going to arrest the invading infantry battalion. They can literally walk right in. You should probably need an army of your own to defeat a serious invading army. It's not very nice, but the static power of freshly settled cities irks me greatly.
The AI doesn't seem to have much issue taking other Ai cities. We may want to make CS live longer, but that could be controlled by AI behavior instead of combat.
We don't want to make cities too strong because they intentionally tried to move away from civ5 where cities were the only part of the map that mattered in war, because they were so tough.
The argument is roughly ~
Units in the classical/medieval/renaissance have strengths that go like this:
35/45/55
This means that any city in one of those eras has a base strength that matches the units of that era (since you've built them) without you having to invest in anything beyond ancient walls, if that.
Instead, city defense can be linked to the level of wall by making walls effectively units. IE, take the unit strength of the era, and add X to it (currently the game has this setup to be roughly, +5. We could make it 0, or 10, or -5, or anything we want.)
Example numbers:
No walls/walls destroyed and no garrison: 30 str
Ancient Walls: 40 wall strength, 30 ranged strike, 50 HP
Medieval Walls: 50 wall strength, 40 ranged strike, 100HP
Renaissance Walls: 60 wall strength, 50 ranged strike, 150 HP
Urban defenses: 70 wall strength, 60 ranged strike, 200 HP
Since you know the strength of the units the walls will be facing in any era, you can just make the walls match them. If you want to be able to fend off progressively superior siege engines, you have to build better walls. I think if you did this you would need to tweak walls a little so a city could build the highest level straightaway (and of course, they could stand to be cheaper generally. Poor Georgia.) Now it's up to us what to do with the city itself once the walls are down. Perhaps the garrison rule could be that the city itself (again, not the walls, just the city) becomes at least as strong as the garrison unit's melee strength. I mean, then it's consistent with what happens when you fight a unit in a district.
Castles didn't kill armies. They created time for the defenders. Currently cities already have 200HP base, plus melee attacks do less (half?) damage without a ram, and ranged units do half damage. They are very very tough when their innate strength matches unit strength.
EDIT: if you don't have any form of defenses or garrison, I don't think there is any reason that cities should still be hard to take. It's not like the local sheriff is going to arrest the invading infantry battalion. They can literally walk right in. You should probably need an army of your own to defeat a serious invading army. It's not very nice, but the static power of freshly settled cities irks me greatly.
Last edited:
Atwork
Immortal
IMO:
Human's walls should be weakened against AI attacks, since AI has a difficult time invading human lands absent overwhelming numerical and/or tech advantage.
AI's walls against human attacks should stay strong. I like that the current iteration requires bringing the proper siege units or else risk a long, drawn out blood fest.
AI's walls against AI's attacks seem to be fine. In my current game, China took over 4 of Norway's 8 cities without too much difficulty. On another continent, America took over 3 or 4 German cities. And there's been plenty of cities changing hands or being conquered. 3 civilizations were completely wiped out (started with 20, I think).
Human's walls should be weakened against AI attacks, since AI has a difficult time invading human lands absent overwhelming numerical and/or tech advantage.
AI's walls against human attacks should stay strong. I like that the current iteration requires bringing the proper siege units or else risk a long, drawn out blood fest.
AI's walls against AI's attacks seem to be fine. In my current game, China took over 4 of Norway's 8 cities without too much difficulty. On another continent, America took over 3 or 4 German cities. And there's been plenty of cities changing hands or being conquered. 3 civilizations were completely wiped out (started with 20, I think).
Ondolindë
Emperor
I also think this should happen. Walls are great, but no real incentive for building the latter at times.
I also would suggest using TCS Free Walls for City-States https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1130568132&searchtext=wall to slow down the AI on how they overtake city states as fast as they usually do.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
It's not a matter of "too hard". Player and enemy both get walls.
Even before the unjustified buff, defenders had a significant advantage in Civ 6. The stronger/longer walls last, the less important/punishing unit positioning is. Since Civ 6 is a strategy game, I want unit positions relative to time to matter. Super walls make it matter less.
Civ's scale doesn't make historical sieges possible. IRL, it was not uncommon to be able to starve out a besieged fortification/castle. Having entire cities + means of food/water access walled in was uncommon and cost prohibitive. In Civ 6 if you try to surround a city with foot troops you just get shot to death.
So we accept that Civ is an abstraction. In doing so, the idea that walls should have tons of HP to the point of trivializing unit production and providing a large cost:damage:hp advantage doesn't hold to scrutiny. It's already pretty nonsensical that walls can trivially kill the unit line built to counter them until the end game.
This is why making walls stronger was bad. Where your army is located should be extremely important.
This is mostly about the AI being less effective because it is too dumb to conquer a city with walls but if you are here because you think the AI walls are a pain...
Use a ranged unit to bait out the in the AI city walls. Because of how the city defense is calculated with a garrisoned unit you will often see a city drop from 40 to 17 once they move out the garrisoned unit.
Use a ranged unit to bait out the in the AI city walls. Because of how the city defense is calculated with a garrisoned unit you will often see a city drop from 40 to 17 once they move out the garrisoned unit.
Similar threads
