View Full Version : What's the point of building large/epic stone walls
....if the besieging enemy can just build bigger/better towers for the same amount of points?
Shouldn't something 3 times as tall that takes 3 times as much materials to build cost 3 times more?
the enemy cant build ladders (they can, but they can't use them... bug), and your towers do more damage.
And your troops are much better protected from enemy fire. Long-range archers can clear stone walls from defenders, but they have no chance against tropps on large or epic stone walls.
The dead angle on the foot of the wall seems to be larger, though.
the enemy cant build ladders (they can, but they can't use them... bug), and your towers do more damage.
....but so do theirs! They get those machine gun ballistas that kill an urban cohort in like 10 seconds! For the same points as a tiny little tower!
....and you all seem to be missing the point
Alexandr III. Biges
12-27-2004, 00:55
....and you all seem to be missing the point
I understand, the enemy have just to vait a bit longer for city to fall, that's all. I MTW both sides sustained loses during siege and with larger castles and security upgrades they got really burn. Especially good is when your garrison were small, so won't fall without a direct asault :)
Otherwise I never built more than second level walls (wood), althou I think first level is sufficient. Other only if I have nothing better to do or just want to a city look "cool".
I got and idea! What about to add some happines and/or law bonuses? You know, people feel safer, less criminals get in/out of the city.
...
I got and idea! What about to add some happines and/or law bonuses? You know, people feel safer, less criminals get in/out of the city.
Since the beginning I've thought that walls should provide some type of happiness, at least, bonus. The citizens living behind a large stone wall would have to feel more secure than those living behind a flimsy stockade. That increased feeling of security would only result in a happier citizenry.
....and you all seem to be missing the point
you mean the siege towers right?
well, no point actually... other then that the forces that come close enough get shot at with better weapons, but they get better in their siege towers too, soo...
no real point...
You can fit more men on the walls! On first level walls you'll only get two units spread between each tower, with epic walls you can pile literally hundreds of archers right where you want them to be.
No ladder attacks! Ladder attacks occur across an entire frontage of wall. It's a pain, you can't get your archers and melee infantry on there in a manner which won't have your archers being slapped about when someone climbs up the wall.
Ballista return fire! Those weedy arrows your towers fired non-stop could start to sting during a whole battle. Firing ballistas all over the shop is gonna really put the pain on.
They're tall. It takes a vast amount of your time for your guys to climb all the way up a siege tower on the first level stone walls. With epic walls it takes positively donkeys years for the enemy to climb all the way up one-by-one on their ladders, to say nothing of the fight involved when they get there. And if they lose? Their men will be coming one-by-one because they can't use ladders. Fodder.
It looks cool! They're so damn big I question the ability of even the Romans to actually build the buggers in real life.
ivoignob
12-27-2004, 03:25
Thats true. Both the epic stone walls and the siege towers are so high :dizzy2: , i'm questioning myself if it is even possible at least for the towers (stonewalls are solid and strong but what if such a tall thing is made of wood?) to be built in real life. they are even taller than the 6 floor apartment i live in. therefore i think epic stonewalls must have a use.
you mean the siege towers right?
well, no point actually... other then that the forces that come close enough get shot at with better weapons, but they get better in their siege towers too, soo...
no real point...
That those towers cost the same amount of build points as the smallest ones! Wake up!
Red Harvest
12-27-2004, 07:23
That is an interesting point. Larger walls should require more build points for towers or sap points, because they are larger undertakings.
This has some points in common with port size not influencing how many boats are required for a blockade, etc.
They should tie in walls more closely to city development. For example a happiness bonus, as stated above, or it could also be a bonus to say, admin income. Or they might even restrict the building of high-level buildings like Pantheons, so that you would have to build a stone wall at least, for example.
King_Etzel
12-27-2004, 16:19
Thats true. Both the epic stone walls and the siege towers are so high :dizzy2: , i'm questioning myself if it is even possible at least for the towers (stonewalls are solid and strong but what if such a tall thing is made of wood?) to be built in real life. they are even taller than the 6 floor apartment i live in. therefore i think epic stonewalls must have a use.
Well i suppose they are after all supposed to be epic stone walls. You know, sort of like how people imagine Troy looks like. didnt see the movie though. I mean, dont you want it to look as advertised? ~;) Maybe if they were just sort of biggish stone walls then people will be complaining that they arent really all that epic rather than complain that it isnt realistic.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.