Large Stone Walls

[Rodrico Stak]

Is it worth it to build them? They are twice as expensive to build as stone walls, and take something like 10 turns to build, but the only thing besides being bigger that they seem to provide is preventing the enemy from using ladders. I'm not sure how that's a benefit - it is much easier to kill enemies climbing up ladders than ones in siege towers. So unless there's something I'm missing it doesn't seem like its worth it to build large stone walls.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Unless I am mistaken, Large Stone walls provide a +5 law bonus, bu that is insignificant when you consider how much time and money it takes to build them. The Large Stone wall towers have more attack and range.

Actually, in my opinion, it is easier to kill the enemies coming out of one siege tower than four ladders. Soldiers seem to scale the walls a lot faster when scaling ladders. I am also not so sure if you can destroy the ladders with archer fire/towers, which is very much possible with siege towers.

Nevertheless, I would agree that the large walls are useless. You should invest in economic, law-giving buildings, which reduce corruption, as well public health buildings, which increase population, therefore increasing the taxes.

[Ravenic]

On another note, I found out that the siege towers they build to attack Large Stone wals actually have ballista mounted in the top, which cleared out 75% of my elite royal guard unit trying to defend the wall before I could get them out of the way. Which was pretty stupid...

I'm 99% sure that the siege towers that scale normal stone walls don't come equipped with a monster machinegun-ballista. Which adds more incentive *not* to get the larger walls.

[Aemilius Paulus]

On another note, I found out that the siege towers they build to attack Large Stone wals actually have ballista mounted in the top, which cleared out 75% of my elite royal guard unit trying to defend the wall before I could get them out of the way. Which was pretty stupid...

I'm 99% sure that the siege towers that scale normal stone walls don't come equipped with a monster machinegun-ballista. Which adds more incentive *not* to get the larger walls.

Yeah, that's also true, although I never actually tested the ballistas. I try to pick places along the wall where there are none of the enemy units to oppose my soldiers. However, who would try to stop the enemy on the walls? I never fight battles on the walls because you lose so many men, no matter how elite your unit and how crappy the enemy unit is. I once fought the Lusotannan unit of Ambushers (120 men) on the walls with my 3 exp/1weap.&armour unit of Triarii. I won but was down to 56 Triarii from an original of 82. The best place to stop the enemy is at the entrances at the bottom of a tower or at the gates (and do not worry about tower fire; the towers cannot shoot at something so close to their base), where the enemy will be cut down, one by one, piece by piece. I have won defensive siege battles this way against all odds.

[Ravenic]

Actually, I found that you take horrendous casualties if your men just sit there without you doing an action, but if you actually *click* the enemy unit once they're partially on the wall you'll take much fewer casualties, presumably because now your men are all trying to fight rather than one at a time.

I literally lost 50% of one unit until I realized I should click them, after which I only lost about another 10%, and that was with the majority of their army still remaining for me to kill.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, I found that you take horrendous casualties if your men just sit there without you doing an action, but if you actually *click* the enemy unit once they're partially on the wall you'll take much fewer casualties, presumably because now your men are all trying to fight rather than one at a time.

I literally lost 50% of one unit until I realized I should click them, after which I only lost about another 10%, and that was with the majority of their army still remaining for me to kill.

Trust me, I watched my Triarii during the entire duration of that fight and I saw them fight and push the Ambushers back. They were not just sitting there and doing nothing. I ordered them to attack and they did.

BTW: One time I was sieging Alexandreia as the Romani and I had three units of Principes moving along a small stone wall when I noticed that the Principes began tacking casualties. I checked if there were any enemy towers or missile units, but there were none. I ignored the casualties and went on to perform another maneuver when suddenly the Principes began suffering more losses. It turned out that the Principes were actually falling from the walls for no apparent reason, other than the walls were a bit crowded.

[Rodrico Stak]

I'm 99% sure that the siege towers that scale normal stone walls don't come equipped with a monster machinegun-ballista. Which adds more incentive *not* to get the larger walls.
They do have a ballista, but I haven't noticed it being particularly devastating. The most that I have ever seen them kill before they get too close to fire is probably around 10 soldiers.

[Aemilius Paulus]

They do have a ballista, but I haven't noticed it being particularly devastating. The most that I have ever seen them kill before they get too close to fire is probably around 10 soldiers.

The small towers do not have a ballista, if that is what you were talking about. Only the large ones, which are, in my opinion, too large to be historical.

[Rodrico Stak]

The small towers do not have a ballista, if that is what you were talking about. Only the large ones, which are, in my opinion, too large to be historical.
No, I think they do. Maybe it can only fire if the tower is manned by archers (as Makedonia a tower fired at me when it was being used by a unit of Toxotai).

As for the siege towers' sizes, I think you're probably right. There was the Helepolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helepolis) built by Demetrius Polikertes (sp?) for the siege of Rhodes, but it was not by any means common, I would expect.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

I find defending regular stone walls easier than defending large stone walls. With regular walls, the AI builds ladders. With large stone walls, the AI seems to like to build a half dozen sapping points, which are much harder to defend against.

[Aemilius Paulus]

No, I think they do. Maybe it can only fire if the tower is manned by archers (as Makedonia a tower fired at me when it was being used by a unit of Toxotai).


Are you sure about that? The Toxotai have nowhere to fire from, and plus they are not in the siege tower when it is moving. Not only this, but I have tried to perform the same trick myself and failed.

[Danest]

The larger siege towers have absolutely fantastic firepower, and can blow away major units on the walls with incredible effectiveness and speed. I wish I could build them for all any any battle, they are that good. I wish I could use them on the defense, too. ;)

[Beefy187]

I managed to kill the enemy general with my siege tower fire when I was sieging large stone walls (forgot which city, probably one of Carthaginian)
Enemy general was at the town square and I was amazed at the fire range of my siege tower (and power too.)

[Incitatus]

Are you sure about that? The Toxotai have nowhere to fire from, and plus they are not in the siege tower when it is moving. Not only this, but I have tried to perform the same trick myself and failed.

The smaller siege towers are able to fire arrows, I believe. You just need to select the tower and hit the fire at will button.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The smaller siege towers are able to fire arrows, I believe. You just need to select the tower and hit the fire at will button.

But they don't have the blue ammo bar. Isn't that what indicates the ability to fire missiles?

[Grriffon]

I also have been terrorized by the large siege towers. I was defending on the walls and this thing absolutely decimated all my troops up there before I could even get them out of the way. It's like a machine gun ballista, it's crazy.


Perhaps unrelated, one of my more embarrassing losses was while defending large stone walls. The AI was building sap points, so I placed all my units at the place where I thought the holes in the wall would be. The problem arose when the sappers brought down the walls, instantly flattening all of my troops who were standing too close to the falling debris i guess. I had no idea what happened at first, and then i saw the funny looking piles of bodies :embarassed:

[craziii]

I managed to kill the enemy general with my siege tower fire when I was sieging large stone walls (forgot which city, probably one of Carthaginian)
Enemy general was at the town square and I was amazed at the fire range of my siege tower (and power too.)

that is incredible if true. shooting from the wall all the way to the town center!

[QuintusSertorius]

Good money sink when you've got loads of money and not much else left to build.

[Skandinav]

I rarely build large stone walls anywhere save occasionally at my capital, mainly because I find them ugly and it would be a shame to overlap those great EB oppida-ish city-walls found in celtic and iberian settlements and I also prefer sieges with both ladders and towers.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Build great stone walls for roleplay reasons in your capital for example or very important cities.

Yes small siege towers do have ballistae too. Funny that it took me years of RTW and EB gaming without even noticing until I read about it on the forum...~:0:grin:

I don't think the siege towers are overpowered. Indeed siege towers were extremely sophisticated works of the best engineers of their era, with multiple "calibres" of ballistae attached to various levels and a giant wheel driven by oxen inside the basement which propelled the whole tower over some kind of gear.

[Sdragon]

I hate letting my men get whittled down in a long siege so I tend to break the siege with my defending troops as soon as possible. For this the stone walls are great. They give your missile troops far greater range and you'll cause a heck of a lot of damage depending on how retarded the AI wants to behave.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I hate letting my men get whittled down in a long siege so I tend to break the siege with my defending troops as soon as possible. For this the stone walls are great. They give your missile troops far greater range and you'll cause a heck of a lot of damage depending on how retarded the AI wants to behave.

Yeah, I never really wait for the enemy to siege me for more than one turn. I sally out on the same turn they attack me and because of this, I don't have to face any siege equipment

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I HATE siege battles. I NEVER sally forth. At least there's always a good chance that the enemy decides to lift the siege instead of attacking.

[Olaf The Great]

Stone walls are made out of stone.

Anyway, am I the only one who likes playing siege battles?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Stone walls are made out of stone.

Anyway, am I the only one who likes playing siege battles?

Nope, I LOVE siege battles. True, there is less maneuvering, but more of other possibilities though.

[Rodrico Stak]

Stone walls are made out of stone.

Anyway, am I the only one who likes playing siege battles?
I like them too, although I prefer the ones in ME2 because you can actually set siege towers on fire (I know that you can in RTW also, but for me at least it is very rare).