Walls

**Schwarzenegger** · August 14, 2008, 01:08 PM

While I like the idea of the reinfoced stone walls as regular stone walls were just pathetic later in the game, I think that they are a bit too powerful.

I don't know if all walls are equal, it doesn't seem so after my latest siege (attempt) on Rome. I had a bunch of siege towers and within seconds of being in range of the walls and towers half of them were a collapsed pile of burning wood. i'd expect this when towers are caught in the crossfire of two wall towers, but this wasn't the case. Hell, I'd settle for them getting shot down from one tower, but not within two seconds of getting shot at.
Once the towers were down the units pushing them were quickly shot to bits and were under half strenght by the time they moved out of ranged of the towers.

Am I the only one who thinks that those new walls are a bit too strong? I'm all for tougher sieges, but you shouldn't need to use up your whole stack of units and 20 siege towers to be able to even reach the walls. Onagers aren't another solution as they only take away about 1-2% from the walls each shot. Spies will just mean my army is shot to bits before they even reach the gates.
I don't want to have to start auto-resolving sieges on big walls

**TM Is Back** · August 14, 2008, 01:29 PM

Hmm... about those reinforced towers. I think those things are way overpowered. They should their balista arrows as fast as the normal stone arrow towers. If my memory is correct in vannila the balista towers were shooting far slower.

**Scutarii** · August 14, 2008, 02:35 PM

Well, Rome I think has the highest level of walls... But still, I agree they should be toned down a bit.

**TM Is Back** · August 14, 2008, 02:43 PM

Only the firiing rate of those ballista towers.

**CaesarVincens** · August 14, 2008, 03:19 PM

The new towers are a good deal tougher, I lost some 100 odd phalagintes on my Epirus campaign to one, but then I went from a slightly different angle and lost zero of my remaining 18 men.

So really it just means you can't go straight towards the wall. You have to find a blind spot.

**TM Is Back** · August 15, 2008, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by CaesarVincens

The new towers are a good deal tougher, I lost some 100 odd phalagintes on my Epirus campaign to one, but then I went from a slightly different angle and lost zero of my remaining 18 men.

So really it just means you can't go straight towards the wall. You have to find a blind spot.

It is not only that, it is also when you walk in the city. In vannilla i did not care much for the few casualties that came from 1 tower, but now....

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

SAP!SAP!SAP!

You can't sapp reinforced walls ^^

**Stilgar CG** · August 15, 2008, 03:09 AM

Assults are meant to be a bloody afair. Weakening walls could make it too easy to take the AIs-controlled cities, which are commonly weakly garrisoned. Stone walls can also be used for balancing the game, particulalrly early in the game. Weak stone walls would probabaly be of little use.

**Unknown Soldier** · August 15, 2008, 02:17 AM

SAP!SAP!SAP!

**TM Is Back** · August 15, 2008, 03:12 AM

But now, i played a battle against 3 full macadonian stacks. I could not defend on the walls for i had not enough soldiers for that so i stood at the main square waiting for them. It was a Greek Large City, so you guys know there are only 2 entrences to that square.

Well the AI lost a total of 55% of their soldiers to only the balista towars. 55%!

**Stilgar CG** · August 15, 2008, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by TM Is Back

But now, i played a battle against 3 full macadonian stacks. I could not defend on the walls for i had not enough soldiers for that so i stood at the main square waiting for them. It was a Greek Large City, so you guys know there are only 2 entrences to that square.

Well the AI lost a total of 55% of their soldiers to only the balista towars. 55%!

TM, 55% of 3 (full?) Macedonian stacks?! :hmmm: