Walls

[Chazbagel]

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 ***

 

[wakiki]

If they were implemented, they should also get HUGE defensive bonuses in mountains. Meaning that defending a mountainous chokepoint would be far easier than defending a long wall across grasslands (which doesn't make much sense).

I don't know though. It really depends on the scale that the tiles are. Is each tile supposed to represent a mile? It wouldn't make much sense to be [sucessfully] defending a wall that's ten miles long.

 

[Chazbagel]

No, the walls would be built, and based sort of like rivers are.. they would go along the outsides of the tiles.... Thus, the other unit cant go through the wall, unless sacking it, or pillaging it.

 

[wakiki]

That's the way I pictured it What I mean is, if a tile is one square mile wide (meaning one side of a tile would be a mile long) , it wouldn't make much sense to see a wall ten miles long be defended.

 

[Chazbagel]

There is a wall between the Koreas that is way longer than 10 miles. They have it defended on both sides. I see what ur saying tho.

But lets say you build a wall around your capitol (hmm.... Rome) so you build a wall around the borders. an aztec warrior comes up to the wall. he wants to get through. But that jag warrior would have to declare war on the Romans, then pillage the wall (taking maybe 5 turns). this would defeat surprise attacks. Now rome would be ready and have defense built before the jags could do serious damage.

Maybe a better word than wall would be Blockade..

But then you would also have to have some sort of gate so that your units could get to the other side. hmm...

 

[swooper]

I like the idea. The idea is no different then having a spearman vs a tank. by that I mean if you can have a spearman vs a tank and a spearman wins (in rl that will never happen) then whats so different then a wall that is 10 miles long? its a game, I say do it. but maybe make a new advance. or something like that.
Also Im sure there are many more walls that are longer then 10 miles long? wasnt there a big wall that the romans were building through germany down to rome?

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

why not just build a line of forts and man them?

 

[Chazbagel]

Because, by them attackign your forts, they have to declare war on you. They would already be given time to get inside your country before you can really mobilize for war. By having a wall, they would have to declare war on you, then pillage the wall, then get through a line of forts... at least that is how i would use the walls..

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

THATS JUST TOUGH!!!!

the longer the wall, the harder it is to guard, you either have the resources to man a long curvy length of forts across all of your borders or you don't.

 

[Chazbagel]

The enemy couldnt use a wall to their advantage, but they could use your forts to their advantage

I will fight for my walls, if you havent noticed.

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

They can erect barricades on 2 points either side of their position on the wall and turn it into a fort!

The concept is the same, you might as well just build the forts and if you don't have the economy to build 20 odd forts in a nice long line along your border and fill them with spearmen, then it means you can't afford to build that wall either



^spearman defeating tank because he is in fort

 

[Gogf]

There is a wall between the Koreas that is way longer than 10 miles. They have it defended on both sides.

No, it's not a wall. The DMZ is very fortified though.

Actually having a giant wall would be very expensive to build, but perhaps you can garrison troops on the square, or on a wall (you can have walls facing different directions). The enemy can then either break through the gates with rams (while being fired on by your small arms units above if you have them), scale and take the walls to use themselves, or simply destroy them with catapults.

Later on, instead of walls you can erect other buriars (like trenches, or anti-tank ditches). I can imagine a number of great options, if they impliment them. You must build bridges over anti-tank ditches, or go "over the top" out of your trench after positioning machine guns, leading to WWI style warfare.

In other words, this would basically allow new tactics of offensive and defensive warfare. I fully support this idea (as well as my additional ideas ).

 

[Genocidicbunny]

they shold also have like wall techs so that with every era you can upgrade your wall

 

[Tom_Bombadil]

boo

build lots of forts instead!

 

[Genocidicbunny]

you could also heve walls built in places hard to defend like in a valley surrounded by mountains. there is also a nice concept to anti-tank and anti-air installations outside of cities. they would be like units or city improvements that all require maintenance

 

[Genocidicbunny]

swooper- wasnt that the Hadrian's wall? but anyway the Idea of outside walls would be cool, because of all the options it could offer and because of the concept of combining games like Empire Earth and Civ is something to look foward to.

 

[Chazbagel]

Thanks stick... Someone finally agrees.

 

[swooper]

hey I agreed...wheres my pat on my head? *looks up with puppyeyes*

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Gives pat on the head to swooper

Good job!

 

[Chazbagel]

Thanks Stick and Swooper. At least i have two followers