What's the point of having walls?

[Celt Centurion]

In all of the time I've played RTW and XGM, I've only lost one stone walled city. That was very early on in Barbarian Invasion in which I had a stone wall, but the barracks and archery facilities were inadequate or non-existent, nor was there money to build them. There was a blacksmith, but no armorer. Four full stacks of Goths laid siege and attacked simultaneously from all four sides. With four groups of limitaneai and one archers and a weak cavalry, there was not much I could do. While my archers burned the towers of one group and my infantry died on the walls above the gates, it was just a matter of time before they were overwhelmed, and they were.

Large stone walls or epic stone walls might have helped, but this was too early in the game for them to be built.

Now if I play BI, I move any nearby armies into these cities, discharge peasants and discharge "weaker" mercenaries to raise the population. Build better barracks and an armorer if possible and retrain all units every chance you get.

The walls are great if you are being assaulted, but there needs to be an adequate defence garrisoned inside.

Once you have an adequate garrison of strong infantry and archers, and a few units of cavalry to chase the last of the enemy from the field, a wall is not even needed, unless of course you find yourself assaulted by four full stacks of barbarians with upgraded armor.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

[paul_kiss]

W/o walls it would be damn hard to defend what is mine. There're a great number of tricks that help to make an attacker's life hard.

Walls rule, no doubt here.

[wumpus]

W/o walls it would be damn hard to defend what it mine. There're a great number of tricks that help to make an attacker's life hard.

Walls rule, no doubt here.

I usually play Greek with RTW and XGM, and I ALWAYS build walls for my cities and bigger towns--gives me more assurance--EXCEPT SPARTA. Just as historically accurate. Especially my income-generating settlements. No question--walls give more advantages than no walls (excepting Sparta, because they have Spartan hoplites or Spartan Royal Guards). Hawooh!

[mrdun]

There're a great number of tricks that help to make an attacker's life hard.

Like what?

[paul_kiss]

Like what?

Well, one of them: sometimes it's wise not to set my soldiers directly on the walls to defend them, but to concentrate all my troops on the main square. Thus, I'm letting the enemy to overcome the city walls.

If one thinks it's giving up the city without any fight... well, the enemy WILL take walls and the gate, but it'll cost him damn big number of soldiers indeed. They will of course penetrate the inner area, they'll try to gather up and move to the center. And while doing all that they'll be suffering intense fire from the towers.

And till the moment when they'll finally reach the center 1) they'll have lost many men 2) they'll be exhausted 3) my troops will be 100% fresh. Guess what will happen with the worn out attackers then.

(This trick is actually for a city, not a town. The bigger the walls are, the funnier it is to look at the attacking enemy)

[mrdun]

Haha ok thanks

[Cruelsader]

Yes, AI is dumb: it simply does not know how to assault a stone-walled city properly. It also does not know how to defend one - when I am attacking stone walls the fortifications provide clear bonus against the defending AI. My question is not "Are walls good against AI?" but rather "Is the conception of walls flawed in your opinion?" IMHO, the conception is flawed. Fortifications provide some benefit for competent defender but not much when the attacking army is much larger (which should usually be the case).

[Caius]

the walls do not provide enough benefits

I don't think so. The enemy dispersates if you dont have one.