Useless second castle wall?

[wiretripped]

Hrm, so I developed Hamburg into a Fortress...

Before long I see myself besieged by a full stack Danish army. Dismounted Gothic knights, trebuchets and what-have-you-not. Looking at my four units of light infantry and single unit of archers, I think, "Hmm, I'm in for a world of pain."

Anyway, the trebuchets wreck the fortress' outer wall at two spots, and wreck any towers that may have shot on them, before assailing me. So, I fall back, thinking, "Let's make a stand at the inner wall, maybe the AI won't bring its siege engines into the city and I have a chance to take some down with my unit of archers."

Imagine my dismay when I suddenly see enemy troups on the inner wall. Ha. It appears the outer ring wall connects directly to the inner one. How useless is that? Why have a inner wall then? If the outer one falls, so does the inner.

I should shoot my architect.

I only have one Fortress so far, so... is it the same with each one? Does the Citadel upgrade have the same problem?

Regards,
wiretripped

[pevergreen]

Yes, but i have never encountered them actually going around like that. Just so you know, Dismounted Gothic Knights arent used in the campaign...even more so as they are HRE troops not Danish. The Citadel has same flaw, yes just 3 rings instead of two.

[sapi]

Yes, it's the same, but if you defend it properly (and are aware of it) it's not a problem.

[Shahed]

Yeah I've done that myself. I was surprised in Tunis when the first gate fell, I expected a fight for the next one, instead the troops went onto the outer wall, marched across the the inner wall, and climbed downstairs on the inside of the inner wall. ROFL

[chunkynut]

I only had this issue when the army that was attacking me took the gate to the inner wall and there was a unit waiting on the outer wall to get into the inner wall. When one of my routing units went through my unmanned gate the unit on the wall entered the inner wall when the gate opened.

[Kobal2fr]

Two things :

1) Cavalry can't go up walls. So the uber heavy cav is silent untill the grunts have taken the inner gate.

2) you have huge bonuses for defending walls, not to mention the towers will do a massacre on pinned infantry.

So yeah, the inner walls are less defended than the first, but they still provide a heck of an advantage over just the outer wall .

[econ21]

Are the outer and inner walls always connected? I attacked one (Angiers, IIRC) and although there were some steps connecting the outer wall to the inner wall, my attackers could not climb them. So I was effectively confined to the outer wall. Fortunately, the AI cavalry charged me and did not hole up in the inner wall.

[wiretripped]

I see.

So yes, okay, I guess there's some use for the inner wall.
Still find it silly though.

[sapi]

Are the outer and inner walls always connected? I attacked one (Angiers, IIRC) and although there were some steps connecting the outer wall to the inner wall, my attackers could not climb them. So I was effectively confined to the outer wall. Fortunately, the AI cavalry charged me and did not hole up in the inner wall.

As far as i know they're all connected - even in teh ones with teh big buildings i've been able to pass through as teh defender...

[KARTLOS]

ive not seen the ai do that before, i was beseiged by the timurids in bulgar. they blew holes in the first wall, i retreated to the second, and they brought their ladders through rather than walk around the walls. i almost won on the time out, but the gates mysteriously opened near the end and their heavy cav rushed through!

[dismal]

The one connecting path hardly makes extra walls "useless" anymore than ladders make the first wall "useless". You just need to defend that path.

In theory, each ring exposes the attacker to more towers before falling back.

I'd say what tends to make the extra walls useless is long range cannons. It's possible to punch hole in all 3 walls with a culverin without ever setting foot inside the first wall. This approach tends to throw the AI for a bit of a loop.

[wiretripped]

Well, it did. I had that unit of archers lined on the inner wall next to the gate and was setting up the rest of my (few) troops. Suddenly those archers were attack by this Danish heavy infantry unit. While the rest poored into the courtyard.

I was quite surprised.

[Quillan]

It seems to depend on the castle design. So far, I've found one fortress where I couldn't get from the outer wall to the inner wall, and one citadel where I couldn't get to the inner wall from the middle wall but could go from the outer wall to the middle wall. It also looks to me as if the walls in a citadel aren't as tough as the walls of a huge city, which does irk me a bit.

However, be warned about one thing which is important to know on both defense and offense: the game doesn't take into account the fact that you can walk from wall to wall. If the attackers don't have a spy in the settlement, and they lose all their siege equipment, the battle ends at that point. Even if they have breached the outer wall and can force their way along the walls to the inner bailey to take the square, if they have no way to get through or over the other walls the game will call that a win for the defenders. I don't think there is any way to destroy ladders, but rams and towers can be destroyed and artillery does run out of ammo.

[wiretripped]

The one connecting path hardly makes extra walls "useless" anymore than ladders make the first wall "useless". You just need to defend that path.

In theory, each ring exposes the attacker to more towers before falling back.

True. But it is an EXTRA path to defend, beside any ladders and siege towers. These are easier to defend too, than when an entire unit charges at you that is already on the walls.

It just looks to me as a flawed design. Not that I know a whole lot of medieval castles, but to me it kind of beats the point of having an inner wall. Sure, even like this, it's better than nothing at all, but still...

[Handel]

Actually in the game the walls and the towers are designed to look nice, not as a real defence walls and towers should be. This is especially true for the gates. In every real fortress the gates have additional defence called barbican. In this game everyone who succeeds to reach the gates is safe until he breaches it. In reality this should be the most dangerous place in the world.

[Grey_Fox]

But like the Orcs were able to do it in like Helms Deep and Minas Tirith so it is like totally historically accurate. Like.

[Kobal2fr]

That much is true about the barbican.

The weird thing is, it was the case in RTW:BI (and even in MTW1) ! Gatehouses dropped flaming oil on battering teams. Can't understand why they would remove this, of all things, from RTW.

Dropping boiling oil/boiling water/faeces/masonry/pots and pans on siegers was certainly a widespread and very popular full-contact sport back in the middle ages !

[rosscoliosis]

That much is true about the barbican.

The weird thing is, it was the case in RTW:BI (and even in MTW1) ! Gatehouses dropped flaming oil on battering teams. Can't understand why they would remove this, of all things, from RTW.

Dropping boiling oil/boiling water/faeces/masonry/pots and pans on siegers was certainly a widespread and very popular full-contact sport back in the middle ages !

Yeah, that retrograde bothered me a bit too. Also remember how in RTW a settlement with a stone wall or higher was pretty much guaranteed to destroy at least the first ram sent at it, -even without garrisoned archers? Now it seems even huge walls with ballista towers, and 4 units of yeoman archers firing flaming arrows only manage to take them out every once in awhile, and actually knock out siege towers more often, provided they aren't coming perpendicular with the walls. If you have two rows of archers on the walls, the back row barely ever fires, either... :(

[Kraxis]

I remember attacking Oslo which had been upped to a Citadel.

Three rings seemed pretty tough, and with a huge army inside... So naturally I tried to take advantage of this little feature. Only to find that the last wall was unreachable. Meanwhile the Peasants and archers were spamming me with arrows from the last wall.

Luckily some foolish Peasants thought it prudent to attack my DFKs outside the last gate... and that was that, I took the gate and was thus in. But I could certainly not get onto the last wall. My men simply refused whereever I tried.

[Lord Ovaat]

I've only had two seige assaults with this game so far, and neither time did the AI run the walls. (Didn't know you could) What they did do, however, was to capture the outer walls, and then move their artillery in to take down the inner walls. I was thoroughly impressed! And then they promptly killed me.

[Bob the Insane]

Unless is a bit strong, but it comes as a nasty surprize that is sure...

And as with the above post I also do not thin the issue occurs for the inner wall of a citadel. It apears to be the second wall, whether or not that is the inner one...

[Joshwa]

I noticed that the Northern European castle is better than the other ones because in order to get to the gate, attacks have to enter a cross-fire between two jutting out bits of wall. A deliberate advantage?

[Slaists]

However, be warned about one thing which is important to know on both defense and offense: the game doesn't take into account the fact that you can walk from wall to wall. If the attackers don't have a spy in the settlement, and they lose all their siege equipment, the battle ends at that point. Even if they have breached the outer wall and can force their way along the walls to the inner bailey to take the square, if they have no way to get through or over the other walls the game will call that a win for the defenders. I don't think there is any way to destroy ladders, but rams and towers can be destroyed and artillery does run out of ammo.

This actually implies, the designers did not mean the three wall levels to be inter-walkable, so it's a bug.

[Slaists]

I also have a problem with the central castle building's towers not being activable. Those are there just for decoration now.

[Bob the Insane]

I also have a problem with the central castle building's towers not being activable. Those are there just for decoration now.

I have to disagree on that one...

In fact I only noticed the actual keep twoers working after I patched the game.

You have to have troops very close to the bases of those towers on the keep though...

[seneschal.the]

The only thing that makes cities one point up from "100% victory all the time" is the fact that the rams don't break as easily as in RTW. Until you get huge walls where the gatehouse gets cannontower upgrade even if there isn't gunpowder, the only real risk of losing a city is if the ram breaks down the gate and the troops can just pour in.

Once the ram is destroyed all AI infantry is doomed as it tries to fight on the walls. Town Militia vs Feudal Knights = Militia FTW!

I've defended citadels and fortresses against mongols with a few units of archers and a bunch of peasants. A few sacrificial peasants stand at the main wall to activate the macinegun turrets while the rest fortifies the inner ring. Heroic victories all the time.

As soon as gunpowder appears, the game turns into a siege-insta-win, as Huge Walls automatically get cannon tower at the gatehouse. The AI does not move one inch when you sally out, even if it is struck by cannon fire. I don't know if the there is any artillery that outshoots the cannon towers, but everytime the AI has sieged with cannons they get destroyed in a few rounds from the cannon towers.

Do we really want this very easy game to be even easier for us and harder to the AI? (I've never, ever seen the AI use an extra ram)

[shawpower]

I've defended citadels and fortresses against mongols with a few units of archers and a bunch of peasants. A few sacrificial peasants stand at the main wall to activate the macinegun turrets while the rest fortifies the inner ring. Heroic victories all the time.

<snip>

Do we really want this very easy game to be even easier for us and harder to the AI? (I've never, ever seen the AI use an extra ram)

What level difficulty were you playing on? I've not got the stage where I'm fighting the mongols yet, but going by the sieges I've had on VH/VH so far, I'd be surprised if the peasants could hold them off.

Also, I've seen the AI bring an extra ram on a couple of occasions so far. They haven't had to use it yet as my fire missiles seem ineffective against AI rams, while mine get torched by the AI quicker than .... a really quick thing on fast forward. (8-/
(struggled for a decent non-offensive analogy there. lol.)

[Quillan]

Honestly, I'd think the Mongols are easier in sieges than in open field battles. Probably 2/3 to 3/4 of each army is cavalry, and those are useless in a siege until the walls are breached or the gates taken. Their infantry isn't in the same category.

Oh, I've seen the AI bring as many as 4 rams to an assault.

[Handel]

Not only the gates lack any reasonable defences, but they ARE PUT ON THE INSIDE SIDE OF THE WALLS! Which makes the walls itself the ideal defence for the... attackers. Leaving them in absolutely safe place to hack the gates at their leisure. Extremely stupid.

[PaulTa]

I noticed that the Northern European castle is better than the other ones because in order to get to the gate, attacks have to enter a cross-fire between two jutting out bits of wall. A deliberate advantage?

I would consider this a mixed blessing. If you have lots of archers, I prefer a wall that allows me to line all my archers up in a single rank facing the enemy. Those jutting fortifications mean that if I want to have any archers around the gates, they can only directly fire on the enemy right before the ram makes contact, and in ranks of 7 or 8. Since archer fire from walls sucks so bad as is, I like to have every advantage I get.

Now with a mostly infantry garrison, those jutting fortifications are great.