Small stone walls are much easier to defend than medium stonewalls

[MiniMe]

Like it says.

terminology
small stone walls - EB 1 level stone walls;
medium stone walls - EB 2 level stone walls;
big stone walls - vanilla epic stone walls that were removed from EB.

My arguments:
From my experience of 13 months of continuous playing EB, AI always attacks
small stone walls with:
1 ram;
2 ladders;
1-2 small towers;
and medium stone walls with:
1 ram;
1 sap;
1-2 medium towers.
(Well that's what my clever computer AI is doing, of course I'm not so sure about Yours)

1. Rams are either burned or not and there's no point discussing it, this is irrelevant;
(BTW, is it better to say "either XXX or YYY" or "either XXX either YYY" or "XXX either YYY"?)
2. A sap is always much more dangerous than ladders. Sap breach causes exactly same AI behavior as broken gates do - attackers form a pushing horde and push. Sometimes they are successful. Unfortunately for defender, attacker in case of pushing through sap breach is not burned. I consider saps to be the most dangerous assault strategy of all possible. As per ladders - its laughable, half of them die even before they get on the wall, the other half dies when they get there one by one, cause they receive multiple blows from multiple enemies simultaneously. Only human player is capable of rational use of ladders if he deploys them there where they are not expected to be deployed so that his assault troops are not met and dealt with immediately;
3. Small towers vs medium towers:
3.1. Of course medium tower ballista shot is devastating! But so is medium stone wall ballista shot. And clever human is not placing his troops in medium tower ballista range, he (me) carefully awaits before medium tower is attached to wall and only then he sends his troops there;
3.2. Now comes a bit more complicated issue: medium tower disembark capability is bigger than her smaller cousin. Therefore medium wall defenders simultaneously fight more attackers than small wall defenders. Which means that it is easier to repel an attack launched from small tower.

Summary
1. Rams are irrelevant cause comp is always using them;
2. Saps are much more dangerous than ladders, actually the most dangerous assault strategy of all;
3. It is easier to repel an attack launched from small tower than from medium

ergo:
Small stone walls are much easier to defend than medium stonewalls and there is no point in building medium walls!

Unfortunately, AI is not aware of my genius assumptions and continues building medium walls.
The problem is: I feel complete idiot after I capture his towns.
In the middle of great war with AS. I was lucky to capture Babylon, Charax and Arbela when they had small stone walls only. I wasn't so lucky with Seleukia. Medium stone walls already was there. Every turn Greys siege one of the mentioned above four towns with full stack. no problem, I like it.
What I don't like is that I spent more efforts defending a city with medium stone walls than the rest of less fortified towns combined together. Babylon, Charax and Arbela have garrisons of six units. It requires ten units to repel AS assault on Seleukia. And casualties rate is bigger.
Cause when AI fortifies a city with medium stone walls, he makes it more vulnerable.

My proposal:
1. either remove medium stone walls from the game at all;
2. either replace medium stone walls with vanilla epic stone walls.

Your opinion?

Best regards
MiniMe

[sanitarium]

In my game, the computer always attacks the larger walls with 2 rams, 2 siege towers, and 2 sap points. I think it's easier to defend those walls than the lesser ones, because the computer will have a siege tower and 2 ladders and it gets very crowded. I can move my defenders around relatively easily on the huge walls, whereas on the smaller ones, there's not much room to move.

With regard to sap points, I always find I suffer fewer casualties fighting at the breaches. Depending on the faction I'm playing as, I'll usually have a couple of levy phalanxes defending the gates and sap points; you can keep an entire army at bay if you stick a phalanx into the breach.

The units I put up on the walls are a combo of missile troops, spearmen, and pretty much anything that doesn't form a phalanx. I notice that I always suffer far more casualties with my units on the walls as opposed to my phalanxes holding the breaches.

One problem with huge walls, the siege towers have the rapidfire bolts that rip through your units like nothing. It forced me to start all the units I want holding the walls to start them away from where the siege tower will land, then when it gets to the wall, I run them in front of the tower to wait. Saves a lot of lives that way.

Overall, I'd say it's much easier to defend huge walls. The computer takes far more casualties just getting their men up to the walls and it makes it a lot easier to fight.

[gurakshun]

I completely agree. I miss those epic stone walls from vanilla, too. I also have noticed a significant pain in the @ss in defending "large walls" over the smaller walls, and I was suckered into upgrading them by the "5% bonus to law" benefit the large walls too. It really is much easier to defend the small walls than the large walls, there is no reason to upgrade save for a piddling bonus to law.

[CaesarAugustus]

I'm pretty sure nothing like the epic stone walls were ever built in the ancient world (barring the Great Wall of China). In fact, even the medium walls look out of place to me in the EB world...

[MiniMe]

In my game, the computer always attacks the larger walls with 2 rams, 2 siege towers, and 2 sap points. I think it's easier to defend those walls than the lesser ones, because the computer will have a siege tower and 2 ladders and it gets very crowded.

How defending against 2 rams, 2 siege towers, and 2 sap points could be easier than defending against a siege tower and 2 ladders? :inquisitive:

BTW, are you playing with rome.exe or rome-BI.exe or alex.exe?


I completely agree. I miss those epic stone walls from vanilla, too. I also have noticed a significant pain in the @ss in defending "large walls" over the smaller walls...
Can you recall from vanilla days, what was AI strategy on attacking epic stone walls?

[MiniMe]

I'm pretty sure nothing like the epic stone walls were ever built in the ancient world (barring the Great Wall of China). In fact, even the medium walls look out of place to me in the EB world...
Carthage fortifications were undebatably epic. But that's not important. What's important is that in the depiction of reality we play with, attacker spends pretty much same time on preparation of large walls assault, builds more machinery and due to its amount is more successful. Which makes TW and its modifications depiction of reality distorted. Better fortifications (and small stone walls due to the way AI assaults them are better) do not precede, they succeed.
Can't recall how it was with epics...

[bovi]

Can you recall from vanilla days, what was AI strategy on attacking epic stone walls?
A miserable failure.

[sanitarium]

How defending against 2 rams, 2 siege towers, and 2 sap points could be easier than defending against a siege tower and 2 ladders? :inquisitive:

BTW, are you playing with rome.exe or rome-BI.exe or alex.exe?

I play with BI.

The siege tower and 2 ladders means there are at least 3 enemy units on the walls at a time (assuming I can't ignite the tower), as opposed to the large stone walls with 2 siege towers, you only have 2 units at a time to fight on the walls.

The rams account for nothing, as I believe I've only seen the computer actually get a ram up to the gate a handful of times in the few years I've been playing RTW. Sap points are preferable for me because I can chew up any attack the enemy tries with only 1 or 2 phalanxes.

Also, you can set sap points on fire. I usually manage to knock at least one out every battle, meaning I have 1 sap point and the 2 siege towers to deal with.

[MiniMe]

The siege tower and 2 ladders means there are at least 3 enemy units on the walls at a time (assuming I can't ignite the tower), as opposed to the large stone walls with 2 siege towers, you only have 2 units at a time to fight on the walls.
:inquisitive: As you can see from my first post, I believe disembark from medium tower to be much more dangerous than ladder climbing or small tower cause the amount of soldiers that land on the wall simultaniously is much bigger

The rams account for nothing, as I believe I've only seen the computer actually get a ram up to the gate a handful of times in the few years I've been playing RTW.
Yep, the rams are not the issue anyway, agreed on that

Sap points are preferable for me because I can chew up any attack the enemy tries with only 1 or 2 phalanxes.
:inquisitive: It is obvious that we need 1 or 2 phalanxes to bloke any hole be it breach or broken gate. However sometimes this is not enough (I mean AI horde assault taktic when he simply pushes your pikemen with heavy armoured horsies.

Also, you can set sap points on fire. I usually manage to knock at least one out every battle, meaning I have 1 sap point and the 2 siege towers to deal with.
WOW! thanx, did not knew that =)

[sanitarium]

:inquisitive: As you can see from my first post, I believe disembark from medium tower to be much more dangerous than ladder climbing or small tower cause the amount of soldiers that land on the wall simultaniously is much bigger

The balancing factor there is only having to deal with two units at a time instead of three. Yes they drop out of the larger towers quicker, but you have fewer dropping onto the walls at a time. 2 siege towers versus 2 ladders and a siege tower amounts to fewer troops that can drop onto the walls at once. Not to mention the archer towers on the large walls do a lot more damage as the enemy approaches the walls.


:inquisitive: It is obvious that we need 1 or 2 phalanxes to bloke any hole be it breach or broken gate. However sometimes this is not enough (I mean AI horde assault taktic when he simply pushes your pikemen with heavy armoured horsies.

I play on VH/M, maybe this is where we differ. The only time I've had a problem with the computer just pushing through my phalanxes is when a spy opens the gate and the entire army charges forward. Then they usually manage to push through, but I layer my defense and they can only push through so many pikes before they're all dead.

[MiniMe]

Yes they drop out of the larger towers quicker, but you have fewer dropping onto the walls at a time. 2 siege towers versus 2 ladders and a siege tower amounts to fewer troops that can drop onto the walls at once.
That's the point where I desagree with you. IMO concentration in one place is more important than the whole quantity of troops landed on entire walls.
When they are climbing the ladder and you expect them there, it's their lowest concentration and your troops usually manage to slughter them one by one.
When they drop from small tower, they drop in reasonable quantity but still you manage to kill them before the next party arives.
But when they drop from medium tower due to their initial amount they manage to keep alive until the next party arives. And if not the third party then the fourth will make things really bad for you.

Not to mention the archer towers on the large walls do a lot more damage as the enemy approaches the walls.
Sometimes they do sometimes they don't. Rather depends on tower boarding area. IMO they pretty well counterbalance medium tower ballista (and yes, I was the first to say that we need not stand and wait for towers ballista fire but still... things happen)

[jhhowell]

I tend to disagree with the conclusion that large walls are harder to defend than medium, though it is an interesting analysis.

A major point that was not mentioned is the bug with large (or epic, in Vanilla) siege towers, where sometimes the attacking unit just mills around at the entrance. Players can tediously work around this with micromanagement, the AI cannot. I don't know good statistics on this bug, but from my own experience as the attacker I expect to see the bug on tower #2 - so I often just send troops in on one tower if the defenders are weak enough that I can get away with it. :beam: Anyway, with large walls figure 30-50% of AI towers will just keep a decent enemy unit harmlessly busy for the entire battle. That's not bad, I think.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned works in favor of the basic wall. I've found that something about the streets and gates of large walls produces much worse "traffic jams" than basic walls, so it takes much longer for multiple units to sally. Of cource an easy workaround is to send units out of two gates instead of one (horse archers through the gate in front of the enemy, heavy cav through the gate nearest the corner the besiegers will run towards).

Out of curiosity, why do you guys face so many siege defenses? I've been playing RTW near-continuously for ~15 months now, and I've faced just two. One in my first vanilla game (easy win thanks to the tower bug) and one in the first few turns of FATW when I got cocky. I'm much more accustomed to seeing the AI besiege a town and then crushing their army, either with the besieged forces or with a relief army nearby. Thus my interest in how fast horse archer groups can sally from gates... And I greatly value the extra height (= archer range) of the larger walls. I'm guessing I must have a relatively cautious playing style, though I don't normally think of it that way.

[gurakshun]

A miserable failure.

How was it exactly? I must be recalling it different than you are. Thanks.

[sanitarium]

That's the point where I desagree with you. IMO concentration in one place is more important than the whole quantity of troops landed on entire walls.
When they are climbing the ladder and you expect them there, it's their lowest concentration and your troops usually manage to slughter them one by one.
When they drop from small tower, they drop in reasonable quantity but still you manage to kill them before the next party arives.
But when they drop from medium tower due to their initial amount they manage to keep alive until the next party arives. And if not the third party then the fourth will make things really bad for you.

I use this to my advantage. Since I know that there are only two spots on the wall I need to watch, I assign two units to fight each tower, one on either side of the ramp. When the first batch falls out, they're getting attacked from two sides and will get chopped up rather quickly. Then I just wait for the following stream of troops to drop into the meat grinder.

Once the computer has committed all of its troops to either the breaches or towers, I'll send out whatever leftover units I have and seal them off. For example, if some enemy units are pinned in the sap breach by my phalanx, I'll send my cavalry out the gate and hit them from behind, this will usually cause a quick route. If not, I'll move my remaining infantry in and just slowly grind them down.

One other thing I like about the higher walls, you can get more of your missile troops into good firing positions. If I have a city that receives constant attack, I'll keep a good sized garrison (assuming I can afford it) with several missile troops, and I can inflict some good damage on the enemy in a quicker amount of time as the larger walls give you more space to place units.

Really the only time I could see using the smaller walls is with a faction that doesn't have phalanxes readily available, like the Romans. Fighting in the breaches without phalanxes does consume a lot of men, and in that case I'd prefer the smaller walls.

[sanitarium]

Out of curiosity, why do you guys face so many siege defenses? I've been playing RTW near-continuously for ~15 months now, and I've faced just two.

What factions do you play as? I have an Epeiros campaign where Taras gets attacked at least once a year by the Romans, this has been going on for over 50 or so years. If I wasn't so entangled in my war with the Ptolemaics (it would appear they control the entire world east of the Aegean Sea, I've spent about 10 years trying to uncover all of the Ptolemaic territory with spies), I'd send everything I had to Italy just to stop those annoying Romans from attacking me all the time.

[MiniMe]

A major point that was not mentioned is the bug with large (or epic, in
Out of curiosity, why do you guys face so many siege defenses?
Current houserules. My stinking rich overstretched Ptolemaioi empire could be a threat to whole humankind if it wasn't so... empirish :laugh4:
1. Main armies are very good but they are stationed in Alexandria and Memphis only.
2. Only half of them can leave this area on new territory conquest, the other Imperial Elites always guard the the egypt twin capital even though noone will threaten them for the next thousand years.
3. Only heir to the throne and his brothers can command Imperial Elites. And the heir can be of royal line only, no matter how stupid he is. Actually they are always stupid, that's my royal family.
4. Family members from etnick minorities are trusted to rule their homeland provinces only (Asiatikoi - in Asia minor, Kypriotai - islands and so on)
5. Immediate destruction of all etnick minorities culture buildings on capture.
6. All rebel uprisings are dealt with recruiting local scum. Never attack rebels with owerhelming forces -the more of your local scum dies the better.
7. Enslave on capture not wipe out. Ptolemaioi are kind and need slaves for their... agricultural facilities.
8. Three spies per town.
9. Highest tax rate even if this means huge garrison.
10. No trade agreements with neutral states. All egyptian trade to stay in egypt borders noone else to profit from egypt.
11. City garrisons are recruited accordingly to city social system and development. Besides lots of crappy native levies this means - no good cavalry before large agricultural estates.
12. And (finally answer to your question) regional governors are not allowed to undertake independent decisions which means - no sallys.

[bovi]

How was it exactly? I must be recalling it different than you are. Thanks.
The couple of times I had epic walls under assault:
* the enemy rolled up their laser cannon siege towers, blasting away any defenders on the walls (so far so good)
* because there is nothing that can stand against said ridiculous towers, I relinquished the walls to the attackers and retreated to the main square
* The enemy army, numbering five times my men, proceed slowly along all the walls inside, to maximize the effectiveness of my towers by letting all of them fire (fatal flaw)
* The enemy arrives at the main square with the third that is remaining of his army
* I charge at the front unit with my guys, everybody routs and dies

In BI, a Hun army of 6 close-to-full stacks did the same (additionally parading in front of my towers on the outside to reach the opening they created). My garrison was slightly more than a half stack, mostly competent troops. The rout was not instant due to the huge amount of enemies, I lost nearly 3/4 of my men but won, with less than 20 enemy survivors.

[jhhowell]

What factions do you play as? I have an Epeiros campaign where Taras gets attacked at least once a year by the Romans, this has been going on for over 50 or so years. If I wasn't so entangled in my war with the Ptolemaics (it would appear they control the entire world east of the Aegean Sea, I've spent about 10 years trying to uncover all of the Ptolemaic territory with spies), I'd send everything I had to Italy just to stop those annoying Romans from attacking me all the time.

In EB, Romans in 0.8, Hayasdan (extensively), AS, and Romans (both briefly so far) in 1.0.

Couldn't the Taras situation be handled by sallies? Station a couple of Cretans (I know mercs are available in Italy), a sphendonetai, and a few deuteroi and a cavalry or two (FM or prodromoi), that ought to chew up Romans nicely. Obviously you're beating them within the city, shouldn't take that much more to beat them in a sally - should it? Maybe the extreme power of horse archers is causing me to overestimate how well non-HA factions can do in similar situations...

My Hayasdan wars were initially dominated by sally victories. That destroyed the Pontic army (peace, in RTW! It's a miracle!) and the AS army, and now has chewed up the Ptollies enough to grab at least one city. Not sure I can get Antioch just yet, but since I keep sending the plague there they can keep it for now. :beam: :skull:

A no-sally house rule would of course explain seeing more siege defenses, though... ~:)

[sanitarium]

In EB, Romans in 0.8, Hayasdan (extensively), AS, and Romans (both briefly so far) in 1.0.

Couldn't the Taras situation be handled by sallies? Station a couple of Cretans (I know mercs are available in Italy), a sphendonetai, and a few deuteroi and a cavalry or two (FM or prodromoi), that ought to chew up Romans nicely. Obviously you're beating them within the city, shouldn't take that much more to beat them in a sally - should it? Maybe the extreme power of horse archers is causing me to overestimate how well non-HA factions can do in similar situations...

I don't like to sally out unless I know my garrison can't handle an assault (or if I'm playing as a nomadic faction). The basic idea there would be I can bait the computer into getting in range of my towers/missile troops to whittle them down and have a better shot at taking them on.

Other than that, I take the siege because I have an easier time letting the enemy come to me to wipe them out.

[NeoSpartan]

fellas.... wtf are u guys talking about???

The AI is retarded in the pains, in the hills, in the small walls and in the large walls. :dizzy2:

[Thaatu]

Ah, this reminds me. Could the battering ram option be removed from stone wall battles? The AI always builds a battering ram, which is always burnt by the gateway towers, which sometimes results in AI going idle. I don't know if there are any players who use battering rams against stone walls, so it would only help the AI. Maybe even increase the "cost" of siege towers, so that ladders would have to be used more frequently.

And if it's possible, could someone perhaps tell me how? I'd appreciate it. And if the answer is only one word, could you please soften it up a little? I hate that word.

[Pharnakes]

Don't

No.

[Hooahguy]

Can you recall from vanilla days, what was AI strategy on attacking epic stone walls?


A miserable failure.


How was it exactly? I must be recalling it different than you are. Thanks.

for fun, i assaulted Rome in RTW in custom battle, with a full stack of urban cohort, versus just a couple of legionaries. i had 2 seige towers. one got destroyed after the first load, and that load of urbans cut thru most of the defenders in his section, but was eventrually wiped out. i got 1 and 1/3 units up on the other side- the tower collapsed with 2/3 of the 2nd unit in it. so basically i lost 4/5 of my army when the job was done... at least i killed all the defenders! :smg:

[Maksimus]

i agree with MiniMe.. I would like to see Epic wall's in... they should be one of the longest to build in EB

[NeoSpartan]

HELLS NO!... really nothing personal but hells no to Epic walls. :thumbsdown:

Very few cities actually had walls that were sorta like a vanilla epic wall (notice I said "sorta like" not like) And those towers shoot 20mm armor piercing rounds. Same thing with the freaking siege towers.

Besides... The AI is stupid! It NEVER fights well... So why are u guys "expecting" the AI to do any kind of smart tactical manouvers in a siege :dizzy2:

come one fellas come one on.... u want the AI to be a challege u got 2 options

A- Roleplay
B- VH/VH Fatige Off.

thats it...

a 3rd option is Multiplayer, and once finals are over this thursday I am going to be here ready to :boxing: ya'll

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
I want the large stones walls out, let alone the epics taken back! :rtwno:
.

[Pharnakes]

Yes, that seems the best soloution to the problem, then no one can complain that they are harder to defend.

[Conqueror]

It's easy to remove large walls yourself:

1. Open the file export_descr_buildings.txt under Rome - Total War\EB\Data in a text editor (make a backup copy first!)
2. Scroll down to the section called building defenses
3. Look at the stone_wall entry and delete the line large_stone_wall between { } under the upgrades, but leave the { } in place

This will make it impossible to upgrade small stone walls into large stone walls, both for the AI and for the player. Any settlement that begins with large stone walls will still have them, but those should be rare.

You could also add "and hidden_resource not_here" at the end of the header for the large_stone_wall entry, but this alone doesn't seem to disable them everywhere IMX, while removing the upgrade option definetly works.

[delablake]

I don't care about defending walls. I never wait for the AI to finish its siege machines or actually starve me out. I just make a sortie if my troops are more or less the same strength as the enemy, or I have a reinforcement army come forth within one round and use them from the outside like a hammer, using the occupying forces plus the walls as the anvil.

[MiniMe]

Gentlemen, please don't get me wrong for starting all this.
This wasn't some kind of demanding tread. BTW, I'm quite able myself either to remove medium stonewalls either to replace them with epic.
I thought this could be a debating tread. Thus far only Sanitarium cared to present his arguments (that have solid ground I must admit).
As per "I don't care, cause I love to sally" argument or "epic walls never existed" or "AI is not sieging my towns cause I'm that cool"... does it confirm or disproof the following statement:

RomeTotalWar small stone walls due to the way AI assaults them are better defense than medium stone walls

[Mouzafphaerre]

It's easy to remove large walls yourself:

1. Open the file export_descr_buildings.txt under Rome - Total War\EB\Data in a text editor (make a backup copy first!)
2. Scroll down to the section called building defenses
3. Look at the stone_wall entry and delete the line large_stone_wall between { } under the upgrades, but leave the { } in place

This will make it impossible to upgrade small stone walls into large stone walls, both for the AI and for the player. Any settlement that begins with large stone walls will still have them, but those should be rare.

You could also add "and hidden_resource not_here" at the end of the header for the large_stone_wall entry, but this alone doesn't seem to disable them everywhere IMX, while removing the upgrade option definetly works.
.
Thanks. :bow: I think I'll do that. :yes:

OK, just done!
.

[NeoSpartan]

Gentlemen, please don't get me wrong for starting all this.
This wasn't some kind of demanding tread. BTW, I'm quite able myself either to remove medium stonewalls either to replace them with epic.
I thought this could be a debating tread. Thus far only Sanitarium cared to present his arguments (that have solid ground I must admit).
As per "I don't care, cause I love to sally" argument or "epic walls never existed" or "AI is not sieging my towns cause I'm that cool"... does it confirm or disproof the following statement:

RomeTotalWar small stone walls due to the way AI assaults them are better defense than medium stone walls

and like I've said 2x before, having x wall put in/taken out because it is easier/harder to defend is a problem of hasty game design by CA not a problem of historical inacuracies.

See what I am saying now?

[Birka Viking]

Well both the epic and large stonewalls is way to large for me..They just dont fit in the game.......

[Maksimus]

Maybe epic wall could fit for one or two cities of that time:shrug:

[Spvrrina Vestricivs]

Maybe epic wall could fit for one or two cities of that time:shrug:

Or it could be made so that cities have to fulfill certain criteria?

For example:

>30,000 population (you'll need the slaves).

Academy (or similar educational establishment for the necessary architects).

City income (tricky this one, >3,000?).

Make them seriously expensive (at least 70,000mnai) and time consuming (60-70 turns) to build.

Right, back on topic...

TBH, I find both types of wall just as easy/difficult to defend as each other and it all comes down to the size and quality of the garrison defending it.

Best moment of AI stupidity - sending a phalanx to where my sap point would create a breach before it was made and not standing far enough back to prevent said phalanx from being crushed when my men brought the wall down.

Or possibly the use of elephants against the gates and watching them get incinerated one by one. Oh, how the city feasted that night!

[Perturabo]

Absolutely correct MiniMe. Medium stone walls are actually a step back from the small ones.

Has anyone noticed also that the medium stone walls (particularly the eastern ones) never seem to shoot at enemies inside the city? The small ones will bombard enemies on both sides of the wall with missiles - medium - nada. I also notice the same with Eastern small stone walls (lack of missiles), the Greek or Roman ones are much more effective in every way.

I don't actually care much for the medium stone walls to be honest. At this stage of warfare very, very few cities had anything of that nature. The Romans were the first real western proponents of effective siege equipment (yes the Greeks/Carthies had some but was not common). The Assyrians in the east of course were well known for it also. The Pelleponesian War (sp) dragged on for as long as it did basically because nobody could breach walls such as built by Athens to guard the way to its docks. (This statement should cause some argument I expect, but its what I believe the situation was).

Edit: I suspect that the reason why the medium walls fire less missiles is much like why the larger castles in MedII get progressively less usefull as they get taller/larger. The angle of the walls is such that the missiles cannot shoot down at the ground. Stupid but true (for MedII). Could be wrong but that is my guess.

[soibean]

I never even bother building stones walls. I honestly find that building the wooden palisades and maybe their upgraded form is the best. That way you dont worry about men getting stuck on those damn walls. You dont have to worry about sap points, which I havent faced in my new campaign.
All I ever do is set up two or three units next to the spot I assume the rams are going to hit. Blast that with fire arrows, if it explodes move down the line if not reinforce. Then once all of the guys are tangled, make sure all enemies are in combat mode. Continue firing fire arrows and lead some cavalry or heavy infantry out the side entrances and into the enemy flank = rout.

These walls are so easy to defend and assault. Stone walls just take longer to assault (meaning two turns instead of one in order to build more siege towers) but are no harder. I honestly cant think of a reason to upgrade the walls beyond wooden except that I dont like how wooden walls really look on the campaign map

why do you guys upgrade beyond wooden? just wondering

[Danest]

I've successfully defended walls with peltasts/skirmishers against "real" infantry soldiers, so the defensive bonus on the walls must be significant. I haven't been able to pull off that kind of thing with wooden walls (perhaps because you can't stand on the walls). I wonder if the tallest stone walls grant an even higher defense bonus? Maybe I'll go do the experiment now... ;)

[soibean]

yea I was wondering if there was a bonus for being on the walls as some offensively sick units have been downgraded by some crappier ones but that was, or so I thought, because the defensive units were in a formation and were on the defensive rather than. i.e. all 160 were standing there in ready formation meanwhile 20 raiders come in and try to hold off the entire army while the rest come in one by one

[Danest]

Ok, I just tried several battles. (I'm not criticizing EB, just in case). Each time, I used arabian slingers (seleukid) (and did not shoot, as this was about detecting their melee defense bonus, if any, and not about testing their rocks). Each time, they fought against the elite pontic cordinau orca, and, of course, lost horribly against such elite units. Out on the field, with no wall, the slingers killed only 5. When defending a breech in a wooden wall, the slingers killed 9. When defending a small stone wall against a ladder attack, they killed typically almost twice that, though a few undoubtedly died from tower-shot. On the biggest walls, I couldn't get the cordinau to use their seige tower (they just clustered at the entrance), but it was pretty clear that things were worse for the ever-doomed little crash-test-dummy-slingers. So, it's quite possible that even with a wooden wall, there's some kind of defensive advantage, but not as good as defending a stone wall.

The huge seige towers have a devastating and rapid-fire attack, so, as most of this stuff is probably hard-coded, the only thing I might suggest is slowing down the huge seige tower's rate of fire (I wonder what is in those things that is firing so quickly... it's not arrows).

I wonder if it should be very, very hard for many (some/a few) cultures to build huge seige towers, and maybe even saps? (I don't know how widespread sap technology was). I doubt build point costs can be tweaked per culture. And if they aren't culture-specific tweakable, then maybe saps or huge siege towers (or whatever is historically appropriate) should have a vastly increased build point cost, and then just allow for ancillaries like inventors and seige engineers to have an equally vast improvement to their build point bonuses. That would mean that it would take some special sorts of men to build the greatest and mightiest of seige equipment, something that you wouldn't see every army under the sun building. This way, not every army would have equal technical know-how, and many would simply not be able to tackle such huge walls without genius technical assistance. Of course, I worry that the AI would not know this, and screw up even more.

[Maksimus]

Or it could be made so that cities have to fulfill certain criteria?

For example:

>30,000 population (you'll need the slaves).

Academy (or similar educational establishment for the necessary architects).

City income (tricky this one, >3,000?).

Make them seriously expensive (at least 70,000mnai) and time consuming (60-70 turns) to build.

Right, back on topic...

TBH, I find both types of wall just as easy/difficult to defend as each other and it all comes down to the size and quality of the garrison defending it.

Best moment of AI stupidity - sending a phalanx to where my sap point would create a breach before it was made and not standing far enough back to prevent said phalanx from being crushed when my men brought the wall down.

Or possibly the use of elephants against the gates and watching them get incinerated one by one. Oh, how the city feasted that night!

I agree, is it posible to add command in exp_decr_buildins.txt
Like:

epic_stone_wall
}
}
epic_stone_wall requires factions { romans_brutii, egypt, romans_scipii, carthage, parthia, numidia, thrace, greek_cities, macedon, romans_julii, seleucid, } and not building_present government and hidden_resource not_here and building_present academy
{
capability
{
wall_level 4
tower_level 2
gate_defences 2
gate_strength 2
law_bonus bonus 2
}
construction 12
cost 12800
settlement_min city
upgrades
{
}

I am 100% sure it will work.. will it? EB team?

Still, if it is possible - that would go beyond wall's.. imagine?

[NeoSpartan]

hum... now here is what I don't understand fellas...

historically in EB's time frame nobody had walls such as the Vanilla Epic walls where those towers and siege towers shoot some type of high powered missile that behaves like a 20mm round AP round.

This is why they were taken out in the 1st place back when .81x was around.

in addition, very few cities actually got to the "Huge City" size while others (like Rome & Athens) were even bigger. This part cannot be simulated by the game.

This is like arguing to have Romans with Lorica Segmentata, even though in EB's time frame they didn't.

So why are u fellas wanting Epic Walls back??????.....:book:

[MiniMe]

NeoSpartan, looks like we have complete misunderstanding.
AI is not very smart on sieging.
Epic stone walls do look stupid.
I would never argue these two obvious statements.
And I don't have any reason to do so.

[Danest]

If anything, this thread appears to be arguing for removing even the medium stone walls due to their weaknesses / lack of advantages.

[Watchman]

...where those towers and siege towers shoot some type of high powered missile that behaves like a 20mm round AP round.I think they in practice have those good old repeater ballistas from Vanilla, actually. Which is functionally about as close to 20mm AP as makes no difference, since not much humans can wear stops a bolt that big.

[Danest]

Can the rate of fire be modded on the huge seige towers? If so, it probably should be, unless they really truly were that powerful, but then, they're the most powerful weapon on the battlefield I think, and, hey, I want to build them for every battle, not just the ones against medium walls! Maybe that's just it, for some reason we can only build these super towers when there's a big wall present, yet, with that sort of firepower, they'd be useful anywhere.

[Beefy187]

Right now the siege tower is way powerful. It killed the enermy general in one shot. (Maybe I got lucky..)

[Hooahguy]

since when do siege towers shoot? they never do that in my sieges!

[Ymarsakar]

Concerning the defense bonus of defending on a wall, it might just simply be due to the fact that any enemy that keeps getting knocked down from 3 or 4 blows from all sides won't get the chance to attack. Thus even units with low defense and low attack/lethality will have a greater chance of offing off the attackers if they can't arrive quickly on the walls.

Also, whenever there is a small number of enemies facing a larger group, the larger group tends to outflank the smaller. This causes the smaller group's sides and rear to turn around. If that happens while an enemy hits them in the back, it would be much more likely to kill.

Also the right side of a soldier unit is almost always stronger than his left in melee, given the fact that shield bonuses are lower than the defense skill. There's a very high chance that an attacker will turn towards a defender on a wall, presenting his vulnerable left side to another enemy, and then only his armor+shield bonus applies.

[Mouzafphaerre]

since when do siege towers shoot? they never do that in my sieges!
.
Turn on fire at will and watch the Enterprise bombard the Romulans with laser canons.
.

[Pharnakes]

You can build artilery.

[Hooahguy]

.
Turn on fire at will and watch the Enterprise bombard the Romulans with laser canons.
.

really! wow- im trying that out! :smg:

[NeoSpartan]

Look this is a pic from EB .74 me playing as KH VH/VH against AS.

I am besieging a city, on the walls are 120 Pantodapoi Phalangitai (Hellenic Native Phalanx) remember than in Vh they get +7 defense bonus.
By the time my 3 towers got the wall there were 6 of them left!

This is what 3 Vanilla Epic Siege Towers do:

https://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g75/Neospartan/20mm.jpg


I know I am exagerating when I say its like a 20mm (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc9E8_ZuESQ&feature=related)
but I am NOT exagerating a lot.

[Maksimus]

Yes, there is one clear disadvantaged when you defend Large Walls, and one + when you attack with those monsters!:laugh4:


But really now - the fire rate and speed of siege tower's should be altered like -

[NeoSpartan]

Yes, there is one clear disadvantaged when you defend Large Walls, and one + when you attack with those monsters!:laugh4:

....

huh?
I am pointing out 1 of the reasons why such walls were done with.

BUT don't forget the Wall Towers ALSO shoot the same thing. Additionally it is easier for the Wall Towers to hit troops advancing on the ground. Plus those 20mm or "Repeating ballistas" (which only the romans deployed in any significant numbers) go through 2 or 3 men advancing on the ground.

[Angelspit]

didn't read the whole thing, so someone may have already said this
i think that medium walls are so much easier 'cause u just have to hang back at ur town square, force the a.i. into a bottle neck at an entrance, and just set ur units to guard mode. usually the a.i. are like 66% wiped by this point, thus a numerically inferrior army may stand against and defeat much larger and better equiped opponents. u might also try and have a skirmisher unit near the wall to get chased all around the interior of the town, that works too.