Walls

[AndrewH]

A wall would also stop scouts from explorying your land. Also you wouldnt have to have units on a wall. Because its more of an obstacle for the enemy units. You could have a gate maybe that only the creator could get through. Then they could make units to take down walls (Sackers, Catapults, etc.)

 

[Gogf]

No, because in real life, anyone who finds an abandoned walled can just climb it and take it over. Perhaps if an unfriendly unit moves onto walls that was not occupied by them at the begining of their turn, they lose all remaining movement points? Sort of like a barricade (but without the annoyance of losing movement points when moving into a barricade that has been occupied for a long time outside of your culture).

 

[dannergreg]

I support the wall idea but I think if there were walls in Civ4 if the wall were more than one tile then I think there should be the option to spread out legions of ranged units along the wall to defend it instead of having to fortify one unit per square.

 

[AndrewH]

And if a wall was built along a river, the defense bonus would go up again? Or are we pusing it now...?

 

[mRhapPy]

Like my barracks idea, Why are walls limited to cities. The great wall of china wasn't even in a city. I think that you should be able to build walls with your workers. The stronger the wall, the longer it would take for the unit to pillage the wall. This would also make more use for catipults. ( i spell that wrong ? ) , or sackers. This way you could build walls to slow down all the people that use the PESKY Aztecs and Zulu, who rush your civ and destroy your worker and the roads before you even have military.

Please reply, i want to know if im the only one who thinks that this is a good idea or not.


*** Catapults ***

HEy i actually amd a threads like this

 

[AndrewH]

I made this a long time ago pal.

 

[jordanmc]

Personally I hated the long string of forts thing, especially since it was so unrealistic early in the game. What made it worse was that if you didnt have the troops to man them all an enemy could simply waltz right in and take your border fort without declaring war.

A wall option would work much better, it would have a smaller defense bonus than forts but crossing it would force a declaration of war, (which would simultaneously solve the problem of those pesky settlers who want to spend a few centuries crossing my territory to take that one tundra square that I never felt like taking.) It would still be time consuming to build but very advantageous.

It should also have the effect of helping to solidify your border from the fluidity it faces with cultural changes (I always hated losing forts to civs because of culture and then watching them send settlers across my border after I retreated my troops from the forts they just took). As a tradeoff building a wall on your border will make the Civ on the other side less likely to trade, ally, etc with you.

 

[ForbiddenPalace]

Wall should not be removed from the city when the size of the city reaches 7. It should be in effect for any size of city as long as it is not destroyed by the enemy.

 

[sir_schwick]

The walls are not removed, but a size 7 city has a 50% defensive bonus anyway. This means building walls is useless because the bonus is the same.

 

[Coorae]

Dont you just want to see your empire have the massive walls you strategically built? A bunch of forts looks like crap

 

[AndrewH]

exactly waht i was thinking

 

[lostcause]

What would be even better is that you can allow units from a friendly nation through "gates" of your choice. That way the wall wouldn't interfear with an RoP, and if that nation does declare war on you, then they would have to fight to get over the wall.