Printable View
I have tended to just build stone walls, on the basis that the larger ones just get the enemy to bring bigger and better equipment to break them.
I don't defend on the walls. I wondering then if bigger walls will be likely to kill more enemies before they reach the centre square?
Thanks.
It depends really, the AI tends not be very good on sieges, stone walls are very useful for the obvious reason of them being stronger and units can mountened on them, how ever upgrade them enough and the only way the enemy can get on them will be with siege towers (on lower level walls ladders are too avalible) so this may mean that a few kills will not be possible because there hiding behind it, however some factions (not barbarians) are capable of "sapping" walls, which means the "sapping unit" will be virtually useless since it will be exhausted but it mean that a wall can be taken down without casualities, but the AI tends not to do that
I personally would build the wall because I can :grin:
QFT. I dunno, I don't invest beyond stone wall except for my largest/most important cities-- I think it's unrealistic to have all the cities with large/epic stone walls, but then again I'd still build large stone walls on cities like Constantinople, just out of principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
I would say, if you put your units on the walls to defend the place, a regular stone wall would be best. The towers are sufficient for killing enemy units and the enemy don't have those uber heliopolis-like siege towers. The space for units is also less on a regular stone wall so it's easier not to get swarmed by enemy siege towers or ladders. And, of course, if you do upgrade to a huge wall, there's the siege tower bug, which you'll see quite often, which may be a good thing if you want to lose very little units in a siege defense, but it isn't realistic at all.
Usually, I don't consider walls to be a priority anyways. Even if I do get the chance to build walls when everything else is already built, it would've been so far behind my frontier provinces that it wouldn't do anything.
Overall it depends upon your tactics. Bigger stone walls are better if you don't defend on the walls and don't go near them as part of your battle plan. Smaller stone walls are better if you don't defend on the walls, but go near them as part of your strategy.
By walking through towers and gate houses, the enemy capture the constructions. This makes them work for your foes rather than you, making going near them as dangerous as it was for them going near your walls in the first place. Smaller stone walls will henceforth limit damage to your own troops should you wish to go within their proximity, while larger stone walls will cause a lot of damage if you do take that chance.
I've always found that defending on the walls is the best tactic though (in this case you'll be wanting small stone walls). The enemy always seems to get defeated easily, even if their attacking forces are slightly better than yours/have higher numbers - siege weapons limit the number of men who can charge onto the wall at once. In the case of ladders it's three scattered men at a time, while with towers it's one massive charge followed by men turning up slowly one at a time.
~:)
Walls are not high on my priority list. I am generally satisfied with the walls already in place when I capture a settlement. The only time a build defences is when I take a settlement without any like Segesta and then I only build a pallisade.
I only build walls last in my settlements in R: TW. In BI the wall can be enormously important, as it is the only thing that stands between you and the hordes. With a large wall and 5 comentanties in Constantinople I could hold even the largest hordes armies.
Right, if there's no wall at all, I tend to build a palisade, but only if it's near an enemy. To add to my earlier post. I tend to defend the square rather than go on the walls. For one, my units can never rout, and by then, my towers would've killed about 10% of the enemy already. They also tend to go in one direction, meaning if one unit routs, there is a high possibility of a chain rout.
I love to see them rout in the plaza, where you units won't rout, no matter if there is a combo of elephans+artillery+general kiiled.
If there are walls, better, i can kill some of them without losing my soldiers.
You have to remember the towers are far more lethal on the larger cities. If I am besieged by a far superior force I use cavalry units to lure the enemy into the towers killing zones and let the city itself deal out death and destruction. Plus on the largest cities if a pursuer gets close enough to follow your unit through an open gate the pursuer is covered in boiling oil which inflicts massive casualties. Archers need at least stone walls as a platform from which to pepper the attacking forces. Wooden walls are virtually useless.
Sorceror.
Although wooden walls do keep the enemy at bay until reinforcements arrive, they do a job.
Especially if those wooden walls are border forts and ships, slowing up and intercepting enemies before they do economic damage, disrupting the town by an impolite siege.
I prefer some defence in depth on strategic map, giving time to assemble relieving forces, rather than fortifying the towns. If they conferred some "security" benefit, like more loyal citizens, or higher chance of detecting spies, I would build them. As is too rarely useful versus passive AI, and a fort early warning is cheaper and reduces rebellion liklihood.