Thoughts on wall?

[Korlon]

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.

[Caius]

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.

[Sorceror]

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.

[Brave]

Although wooden walls do keep the enemy at bay until reinforcements arrive, they do a job.

[RLucid]

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.