Org Mobile Site
Thread: No stone wall for barbarians?
Is it just me an old drunkard or the Getai can't build stone walls? 
Anyway, there were a couple of barbarian strongholds made of stone, esspecially those of the Getai (including Sarmiszegethusa, and many others). But it's hidden or something, right?
Arbaces.
Anyway, there were a couple of barbarian strongholds made of stone, esspecially those of the Getai (including Sarmiszegethusa, and many others). But it's hidden or something, right?Arbaces.
There was a thread about this in the TWC. The team said that barbarians don't get stone walls not because they didn't, but because they didn't get walls like the ones available in RTW. (ie tall, straight, walls you can walk on, with big square towers) Too bad there isn't someone out there with 3d building modelling skill that wants to help.
I heard a rumor barbarians would get walls in the future, but I will let the team adress that...
I heard a rumor barbarians would get walls in the future, but I will let the team adress that...
I agree with TA, with the current models for walls, I'd rather see them not have them than have them.
Originally Posted by Zastrow:
I agree with TA, with the current models for walls, I'd rather see them not have them than have them.
I agree with TA, with the current models for walls, I'd rather see them not have them than have them.
From: http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...howtopic=17477 , Garner`s AAR.
More Pics:
From: http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...dpost&p=196957
May I suggest the EB team to contact the Chivalry: Total War team?
Cheers!!!
PS: Sorry for messing up the margins and the screen configuration, the pics are a bit large... but I think it`s for a good cause.
We do have plans for culturally consistent Barbarian Stone Walls in the future, and may very well include the vanilla ones as an interim solution until the revised ones are ready.
k_raso - Which of the base level walls was modified to achieve the ones you show there? From the look of them (i.e. medium height, no towers) I'd guess it was the second level wooden wall? Assuming that's true, even without towers the game will still think they are there and just shoot arrows at you from the middle of the wall. Is that true too, or was it somehow resolved?
k_raso - Which of the base level walls was modified to achieve the ones you show there? From the look of them (i.e. medium height, no towers) I'd guess it was the second level wooden wall? Assuming that's true, even without towers the game will still think they are there and just shoot arrows at you from the middle of the wall. Is that true too, or was it somehow resolved?
Originally Posted by Kull:
k_raso - Which of the base level walls was modified to achieve the ones you show there? From the look of them (i.e. medium height, no towers) I'd guess it was the second level wooden wall?
Okey, the level walls for the mod are the following:k_raso - Which of the base level walls was modified to achieve the ones you show there? From the look of them (i.e. medium height, no towers) I'd guess it was the second level wooden wall?
Originally Posted by :
Motte & Bailey
The first fortified constructions were simple wooden towers, usualy placed on a hill. Such a tower was called a "motte", and often a small village was built around it, including the house of the local landlord.
To offer further protection , a pallisade wall was constructed around this small village, called a "bailey". These primitive castles would often be improved and eventually evolved into magnificent fortifications.
Motte & Bailey
The first fortified constructions were simple wooden towers, usualy placed on a hill. Such a tower was called a "motte", and often a small village was built around it, including the house of the local landlord.
To offer further protection , a pallisade wall was constructed around this small village, called a "bailey". These primitive castles would often be improved and eventually evolved into magnificent fortifications.
Originally Posted by :
Donjon
Over time the wooden motte was often replaced by a stone variant, called a "donjon". These were tiny castles on there own with a small food and weapon supply stored inside, allowing them to endure sieges for a couple of weeks. Enough to protect the landlord, his bodyguard and a few lucky peasant families against raiders and bandits.
Donjon
Over time the wooden motte was often replaced by a stone variant, called a "donjon". These were tiny castles on there own with a small food and weapon supply stored inside, allowing them to endure sieges for a couple of weeks. Enough to protect the landlord, his bodyguard and a few lucky peasant families against raiders and bandits.
Originally Posted by :
Keep & Castle
The keep is a large stone construction, made out of several towers connected to a solid building. It towers high over the rest of the castle and offers an easily defendable place, allowing a small garrison to withstand attackers for a long time. Around the keep large stone walls and towers are constructed, providing the first line of defence. These walls can be manned with archers and infantry, and require special siege equipment to overcome.
Keep & Castle
The keep is a large stone construction, made out of several towers connected to a solid building. It towers high over the rest of the castle and offers an easily defendable place, allowing a small garrison to withstand attackers for a long time. Around the keep large stone walls and towers are constructed, providing the first line of defence. These walls can be manned with archers and infantry, and require special siege equipment to overcome.
So, I think you`re right, they modded the first 3 wall levels, respectively (already shown), and also eliminated Large and Epic walls.
Originally Posted by Kull:
Assuming that's true, even without towers the game will still think they are there and just shoot arrows at you from the middle of the wall. Is that true too, or was it somehow resolved?
Well, about the arrows, I think it`s better explained in this post:Assuming that's true, even without towers the game will still think they are there and just shoot arrows at you from the middle of the wall. Is that true too, or was it somehow resolved?
Originally Posted by Adherbal:
-sieges are more fair in MP: no unlimited ammo ghostarchers for the defenders
-the AI has a better chance taking a settlement: they like to idle around the walls, but atleast they don't get shot to pieces by ghostarchers anymore
-I never liked the ghostarchers that could be converted to the attackers side by just shaking their hands (= passing through a tower)
Post from Adherbal Chivalry Total War Developer. ( http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...ic=12323&st=0# )Originally Posted by :
Quick question: Will the mottes, donjons, and keeps fire arrow like in MTW or is that limited to the towers on the wall(assuming they fire arrows)?
all auto fire has been removed (except for gates because that appears to be hardcoded), the reasons being:Quick question: Will the mottes, donjons, and keeps fire arrow like in MTW or is that limited to the towers on the wall(assuming they fire arrows)?
-sieges are more fair in MP: no unlimited ammo ghostarchers for the defenders
-the AI has a better chance taking a settlement: they like to idle around the walls, but atleast they don't get shot to pieces by ghostarchers anymore
-I never liked the ghostarchers that could be converted to the attackers side by just shaking their hands (= passing through a tower)
So, if they did it, it`s certainly doable.
Hope it`s useful!!!!
Cheers!!!!!!
My question is, is it either all walls fire arrows / all walls don't fire arrows? Or can you set small wall not to fire arrows and still have stone masondry wall fire arrows?
I remember reading about a Gallic tribe who were taken under siege by the Romans. They sat at their walls laughing and calling them short little dwarfs etc. But the Romans were busy building a siege tower. when it was complete the Gauls (can't remember who exactly) were so awed by the tower itself that they gave up (thinking that some powerful god must be on the Roman side).
anyways what exactly would stone walls be like for the barbarians if they had no archer towers and could not be walked on (have units on them)? would they just be harder to bust through? seems like a lot of effort for something not much different to the 2nd level wooden wall. Don't get me wrong i'd love to see Gauls with walls (hehe) --but not if it is going to delay 1.0 too much.
But that's just one mans opinion anyway.
anyways what exactly would stone walls be like for the barbarians if they had no archer towers and could not be walked on (have units on them)? would they just be harder to bust through? seems like a lot of effort for something not much different to the 2nd level wooden wall. Don't get me wrong i'd love to see Gauls with walls (hehe) --but not if it is going to delay 1.0 too much.
But that's just one mans opinion anyway.
In my opinion there should be pallisades and wooden walls then the "stone wall" should be short wall made out of stone (rather than stone blocks). It should probably be able to be walked on, but not have towers (at least many towers, and be pretty easy to knock down (but not with rams). Then the "large stone walls" should have the strat and battle appearance (and stats) of "stone walls" and the "epic stone wall" have the appear and stats of the "large stone wall". This should be easy to do, with a building modeler. I think the team has had some sort of idea like this for years now.
Originally Posted by Kull:
We do have plans for culturally consistent Barbarian Stone Walls in the future, and may very well include the vanilla ones as an interim solution until the revised ones are ready.
How about the Oppidia wall that Psycho V showed some time ago?We do have plans for culturally consistent Barbarian Stone Walls in the future, and may very well include the vanilla ones as an interim solution until the revised ones are ready.
Originally Posted by Caratacos:
I remember reading about a Gallic tribe who were taken under siege by the Romans. They sat at their walls laughing and calling them short little dwarfs etc. But the Romans were busy building a siege tower. when it was complete the Gauls (can't remember who exactly) were so awed by the tower itself that they gave up (thinking that some powerful god must be on the Roman side).
Yup Attuatuci, right? from de bello gallico? Had to translate that text in school once.I remember reading about a Gallic tribe who were taken under siege by the Romans. They sat at their walls laughing and calling them short little dwarfs etc. But the Romans were busy building a siege tower. when it was complete the Gauls (can't remember who exactly) were so awed by the tower itself that they gave up (thinking that some powerful god must be on the Roman side).
You guys really belive in what you read in dbg? WTH... it was written by Caesar himself... He might have said a lot of truths but small facts like this were undoubtely exagerrated to show "the greatness of Rome".
Boru
Boru
Originally Posted by Brian_Boru:
You guys really belive in what you read in dbg? WTH... it was written by Caesar himself... He might have said a lot of truths but small facts like this were undoubtely exagerrated to show "the greatness of Rome".
Said i remember reading it... didn't say i that i believed it was fact You guys really belive in what you read in dbg? WTH... it was written by Caesar himself... He might have said a lot of truths but small facts like this were undoubtely exagerrated to show "the greatness of Rome".
. Then again stranger things have happened, no?Anyway my point, if anything, was that the gauls had walls that required siege towers to overcome.
Originally Posted by Ludens:
How about the Oppidia wall that Psycho V showed some time ago?
That's pretty much it. But there are HUGE issues associated with making even surface changes to walls, much less changing their dimensions and the way they interact with units and siege engines, etc.How about the Oppidia wall that Psycho V showed some time ago?
As an example, you not only have to change the walls and towers, but you have to alter all the related graphics, such as those which show the impact of incremental destruction. It's a big job.
Originally Posted by Kull:
That's pretty much it. But there are HUGE issues associated with making even surface changes to walls, much less changing their dimensions and the way they interact with units and siege engines, etc.
Right, that explains why it hasn't been implemented yet. Thanks for the information. With the depature of Shifty, is there still anyone working on this?That's pretty much it. But there are HUGE issues associated with making even surface changes to walls, much less changing their dimensions and the way they interact with units and siege engines, etc.
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus:
There was a thread about this in the TWC. The team said that barbarians don't get stone walls not because they didn't, but because they didn't get walls like the ones available in RTW. (ie tall, straight, walls you can walk on, with big square towers) Too bad there isn't someone out there with 3d building modelling skill that wants to help.
I heard a rumor barbarians would get walls in the future, but I will let the team adress that...
There seems to be a misunderstanding - perhaps I'm not able to grasp the main line of reasoning.There was a thread about this in the TWC. The team said that barbarians don't get stone walls not because they didn't, but because they didn't get walls like the ones available in RTW. (ie tall, straight, walls you can walk on, with big square towers) Too bad there isn't someone out there with 3d building modelling skill that wants to help.
I heard a rumor barbarians would get walls in the future, but I will let the team adress that...
Yes, the "murus gallicus" isn't a "straight" wall (in fact, it shows some striking similarities to the walls of Vauban's fortresses), but you can walk on it and it features towers. The following pictures showing models of the murus gallicus were taken during my visit to the Bibracte museum (Mont Beuvray).
[IMG]
[/IMG]At least there are several famous incidents where Gallic or Celto-Iberian "oppida" gave the siege trains of the more advanced nations quite some headaches (Saguntum, Numantia, Avaricum, Gergovia, Alesia, Uxellodunum).
In consequence - we are all only approximations to ideals - I would rather prefer the "Barbarian" cultures to build the standard walls in order to reflect their capabilities to withstand long lasting sieges.
For an illustration, what kind of effort was needed to overcome these defenses please refer to this famous Connolly painting:
Regards - PTB
Originally Posted by Namenlos:
There seems to be a misunderstanding - perhaps I'm not able to grasp the main line of reasoning.
Yes, the "murus gallicus" isn't a "straight" wall (in fact, it shows some striking similarities to the walls of Vauban's fortresses), but you can walk on it and it features towers. The following pictures showing models of the murus gallicus were taken during my visit to the Bibracte museum (Mont Beuvray).
[IMG][/IMG]
At least there are several famous incidents where Gallic or Celto-Iberian "oppida" gave the siege trains of the more advanced nations quite some headaches (Saguntum, Numantia, Avaricum, Gergovia, Alesia, Uxellodunum).
In consequence - we are all only approximations to ideals - I would rather prefer the "Barbarian" cultures to build the standard walls in order to reflect their capabilities to withstand long lasting sieges.
For an illustration, what kind of effort was needed to overcome these defenses please refer to this famous Connolly painting:
Regards - PTB
True. But those are far from the tall cut stone wall that RTW give us.There seems to be a misunderstanding - perhaps I'm not able to grasp the main line of reasoning.
Yes, the "murus gallicus" isn't a "straight" wall (in fact, it shows some striking similarities to the walls of Vauban's fortresses), but you can walk on it and it features towers. The following pictures showing models of the murus gallicus were taken during my visit to the Bibracte museum (Mont Beuvray).
[IMG]
[/IMG]At least there are several famous incidents where Gallic or Celto-Iberian "oppida" gave the siege trains of the more advanced nations quite some headaches (Saguntum, Numantia, Avaricum, Gergovia, Alesia, Uxellodunum).
In consequence - we are all only approximations to ideals - I would rather prefer the "Barbarian" cultures to build the standard walls in order to reflect their capabilities to withstand long lasting sieges.
For an illustration, what kind of effort was needed to overcome these defenses please refer to this famous Connolly painting:
Regards - PTB
Sagunto hardly counts, it was Greek. But all your other examples are valid--we understand the intricacy of Celtic and Iberian hill-forts, and oppida are being worked on. But the above poster is right, theyre far from the vanilla stone walls RTW gave us.
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
Sagunto hardly counts, it was Greek. But all your other examples are valid--we understand the intricacy of Celtic and Iberian hill-forts, and oppida are being worked on. But the above poster is right, theyre far from the vanilla stone walls RTW gave us.
Marcus Aurelius A. and Zaknafien,Sagunto hardly counts, it was Greek. But all your other examples are valid--we understand the intricacy of Celtic and Iberian hill-forts, and oppida are being worked on. But the above poster is right, theyre far from the vanilla stone walls RTW gave us.
thanks for your replies.
As a sidenote: Saguntum most likely wasn't Greek. But based on recent literature, it is possible to develop two interpretations, why some ancient sources claim Saguntum to be a "Greek city" (in particular: Appian).
a) the "benevolent variant": Saguntum - feeling threatened by the Carthagian expansion in Spain - entered an alliance with Massilia (its major trade partner). This brought no great relief, so they sought help from the only power, that already had proven its ability to contain Carthage's dreams of power: Rome. So Appian simply mistook an alliance with a Greek city for
being Greek...
b) the "malicious variant": Because Rome - according to the Ebro-Treaty - had no right to infere, they invented in the aftermath of the Punic wars motives that could justify their actions ("bellum iustum" once again): In particular they forged the content of the Ebro-Treaty claiming it already had included a special "Saguntum"-clause. Furthermore, they invented the "Greek city" Saguntum, so the intervention based on the "the friend of my friend is my friend" reasoning could be applied.
Best readings for the "malicious variant":
a) Jakob Seibert: Hannibal, Darmstadt 1993.
Here a quote taken from page 45:
"Auch Appian überlieferte, als Grenze des karthagischen Bereichs sei der Ebro festgelegt und den Römern verboten worden, Krieg gegen Völker jenseits des Ebro zu führen, die Untertanen der Karthager waren. Den Karthagern sei untersagt worden, den Ebro in kriegerischer Absicht zu überschreiten [Annotation: This Hasdrubal really must have been a Bargaining-Dummkopf!]. Auch über Sagunt soll eine Klause vereinbart worden sein. Die Saguntiner - Appian bzw. seine Vorlage hatte die irrige Vorstellung, sie seien Griechen - und die anderen Griechen sollten autonom und frei sein.
b) Klaus Zimmermann: Rom und Karthago, Darmstadt 2005
Regards, PTB
Um, Sagunto was colonized by Hellenic peoples in the pre-Punic colonization days, although certainly there was a large native Iberian population as well. There are ruins from a 5th century temple of Diana in the ruins of Satunto today. Obviously the original city was founded by Celto-Iberians but by the time of your example it was a decidedly Greek city in influence.
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
Um, Sagunto was colonized by Hellenic peoples in the pre-Punic colonization days, although certainly there was a large native Iberian population as well. There are ruins from a 5th century temple of Diana in the ruins of Satunto today. Obviously the original city was founded by Celto-Iberians but by the time of your example it was a decidedly Greek city in influence.
Now I'm deeply impressed - your knowledge even surpasses that of the Punic Wars specialists?Um, Sagunto was colonized by Hellenic peoples in the pre-Punic colonization days, although certainly there was a large native Iberian population as well. There are ruins from a 5th century temple of Diana in the ruins of Satunto today. Obviously the original city was founded by Celto-Iberians but by the time of your example it was a decidedly Greek city in influence.
Bowing in respect - PTB
PS: Zaknafien, sorry for being so insistant, but I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I do.
What do you think of the following argumentation?
If Saguntum was in fact dominated by Greek culture, we should be able to find corresponding signals in its social subsystems - in particular in its economic system - right?
So perhaps now you ask: Why is a temple not enough? Because that would be the same to the following scenario: In the year 3000 the excavators find the remnants of a mosque in Paris or Berlin dating from our times. Thus they conclude that the French / German society of the year 2000 was Islam-dominated.
Central Proposition: One strong indicator for the cultural influence / selfimage of a society are the coins minted by the corresponding society.
So now have a look at the following link:
http://cgi.ebay.es/MONEDA-DE-ARSE-SA...QQcmdZViewItem
Please compare this coin with the selection found under:
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sg/i.html
So what's the result?
The Arse-Saguntum-coin (featuring a dolfin and a shell) shows striking similarities to Celtic coins, but def. not to coins coming from any part of the Greek world.
Conclusion: Most likely, Saguntum was a Celtic-Iberian city.
Regards, PTB
Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
Um, Sagunto was colonized by Hellenic peoples in the pre-Punic colonization days, although certainly there was a large native Iberian population as well. There are ruins from a 5th century temple of Diana in the ruins of Satunto today. Obviously the original city was founded by Celto-Iberians but by the time of your example it was a decidedly Greek city in influence.
The hellenic settlement is not pre-punic. The first arqueological records point to the first contacts dating to the 9th century, though mythology points to the 10th century or so. Um, Sagunto was colonized by Hellenic peoples in the pre-Punic colonization days, although certainly there was a large native Iberian population as well. There are ruins from a 5th century temple of Diana in the ruins of Satunto today. Obviously the original city was founded by Celto-Iberians but by the time of your example it was a decidedly Greek city in influence.
There are remnants there of human occupation from the Neolithic Age, but the fortified town that Hannibal razed was a Celtiberian oppidium from the 5th century, which had recieved Greek influences from the Massiliote emporia and probably received full settlement sometime during the second half of the century. By the time Hannibal was sieging it it had become what was probably a twin town much like Emporion in the north, with seperate quarters for the Greek and Iberian populations, warfs by the river Pallantia, and a very fortified acropolis [in the Iberian style] on the hill.
There are also finds of very mediterranean styled houses, but it is unclear if they're from pre or post roman occupation in the vicinity, that appear to be in the middle of estates. Also, the probable economic prevalance of the Hellenic [and hellenized] population led to ancient authors to refer to it as a Greek town. They did however mint their own coins using the Iberian/Celtiberian name of Arsé, so we must assume that at least the town was run by a native nobility.
It took Hannibal 8 months, with a full siege train and a complete circunvallation, to breach the walls and overrun the last defenders. I think that speaks a lot about the quality of Iberian fortified settlements.
On the height of the walls, RTW misrepresents walls as a whole, period. The current standard stone walls would be higher than, for example, Athens great walls which were 9m in height up to the top of the crenelations....
Assuming one of those guys is 1,80m high the wall wouldn't be higher than 5 of those guys, and it clearly is. In fact it's pratically as high as 9 of them, almost the double.
I basically agree with Sarcasm, that Sagunto was a 'twin city' with Greek and Iberian quarters, with a blending of culture, architecture, etc. The presence of the temple I used as an example at least points to a significant Greek population within the city.
As a stopgap measure (sorry for the pun), I'd like to see wooden walls be made wide enough to stand upon, but not given the tower upgrade. Not only would this give a tolerable (at least to me) approximation of barbarian walls vs civilized stone walls, it would make for a meaningful functional difference between a pallisade and a wooden wall that I feel is more accurate historically for all factions. If I was going to fortify a place, I'd quickly throw up a simple pallisade as a start, and then I'd make damn sure I could put archers up on the top of it in a hurry, long before I went to the trouble and expense of either making it thicker wood or replacing it entirely with stone. My two cents, which according to the US Mint itself isn't worth the zinc that it's printed on.
it wasn´t really complete stone walls...but fortifications with intigrated earthworks and ditches.
here late Cetic fortifications in central Germany:
http://www.duensberg.de/duensberg.html
or
http://www.angewandte-geologie.geol....de/houbirg.htm
or here a reconstructed germanic village with palisade and earthworks and watchtower
http://www.funkenburg-westgreussen.de
here late Cetic fortifications in central Germany:
http://www.duensberg.de/duensberg.html
or
http://www.angewandte-geologie.geol....de/houbirg.htm
or here a reconstructed germanic village with palisade and earthworks and watchtower
http://www.funkenburg-westgreussen.de
@Sarcasm: I don't think that the average Hellenic or Roman soldier would be 1.80 in height.
well if anything theyd be shorter, so thats even worse for vanilla walls. lol
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
@Sarcasm: I don't think that the average Hellenic or Roman soldier would be 1.80 in height.
Hehe, I used 1,80 for the sake of argument. It makes an even number » 9/1.80 = 5. My engineering background coming to the surface, I guess.@Sarcasm: I don't think that the average Hellenic or Roman soldier would be 1.80 in height.
And like Zak said, it just makes it even worse when they're shorter
.Originally Posted by Zaknafien:
well if anything theyd be shorter, so thats even worse for vanilla walls. lol
Yeah, that was the point.well if anything theyd be shorter, so thats even worse for vanilla walls. lol
Originally Posted by Brian_Boru:
You guys really belive in what you read in dbg? WTH... it was written by Caesar himself... He might have said a lot of truths but small facts like this were undoubtely exagerrated to show "the greatness of Rome".
Boru
This is strange. I always thought that Caesar was showing greatness of himself not "Rome". He hasn't any reasons to show how Gauls are uncivilised. The more civilsed he show them - the bigger success to conquer them. And the bigger glory for conqueror.You guys really belive in what you read in dbg? WTH... it was written by Caesar himself... He might have said a lot of truths but small facts like this were undoubtely exagerrated to show "the greatness of Rome".
Boru
Killing bunch of uncivilised rabble was not worth much attention. There is good possibility Caesar hadn't understand some customs, but claiming that he was underrate them = he was lowering his own success so this is unacceptable.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO