No stone wall for barbarians?

[Arbaces]

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.

[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...

[Zastrow]

I agree with TA, with the current models for walls, I'd rather see them not have them than have them.

[-Praetor-]

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.

[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.

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?

[-Praetor-]

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:
-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# )

So, if they did it, it`s certainly doable.

Hope it`s useful!!!!

Cheers!!!!!!

[Ludens]

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?

[Namenlos]

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.

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

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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.

[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.

[Namenlos]

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,

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