Bigger walls.

[Outlawed]

Hey guys, in RTW the walls of cities and forts seem ridiculously down sized by any scale when compared to actual sizes of walls in ancient history. Walls towered to up to 350 feet at some occasions. Is anyone currently making a mod to address this issue? If not, then I think it would be quite intense if a team would start working on a final realism project, cooperating with the RTR team, to create a truly realistic experience that would mark, perhaps, the end of RTW modding. Its getting old.

[|Sith| Max]

You realize there is a camera height limit?

[Drakedeath]

Why do you assume anyone cares how big the damn walls are? They're not an important part of the game. You stick men on there, siege ladders and stuff reach the walls, attack your units, you either win or lose, and the attackers advance into the town out of range of the towers. The battle is not centered around whether the walls are 350 feet or 100 feet.

[|Sith| Max]

... o i think i get what drake means. he means "Be happy you have walls at all"

[vanity]

Yeah, really... honestly is there anyone who still enjoys sieges in RTW? Other than levelling a city with 10-20 onagers at a time or the occasional city defense battle I find them extremely boring & repetitive. Bigger walls won't really fix what's already broke.

[Outlawed]

Well it seems that the quest, if it were present at all in the first place, to have a more realistic game that is more historically relevant has gone down.
And sith person, yes there is a height limit. I'm not saying the walls should tower above anything outside the game's reach, but the height limit changes with the ground level you are sitting on. It can easily be made to encompass larger walls that would still fit ground level height for a camera.
The main reason I speak of larger walls is larger siege machines. The siege towers of the ancients are misrepresented and in all honesty are watered down garbage from the Medieval times.
I enjoy a proper siege fight when I play campaign, an aspect most of you seem to totally ignore. If you want the game to be systematic and stay the way it is because you've gotten used to it then don't even post negative feedback without stating any obvious reason as to why we shouldn't try and support this.

Also, this 'Be Happy there are walls at all' is probably the most ridiculous argument on here.
If you want to play a proper game that allows you to re-model history to a larger extent then by all means you need to take this, 'at least we have this' idea out of your head. While its modest and accepting on one hand, realizing in the process that there are physical limits to the game, its limiting on the other. If modders had that mentality we wouldn't be going anywhere with any mods. In fact, we wouldn't even be playing games like this right now.

[vanity]

I enjoy a proper siege fight when I play campaign, an aspect most of you seem to totally ignore. If you want the game to be systematic and stay the way it is because you've gotten used to it then don't even post negative feedback without stating any obvious reason as to why we shouldn't try and support this.

Yes, because this is Your Thread and all commentary is therefore OP-related.

All I was saying is that AI siege battles in Native RTW invariably result in an imitation of pacman with you navigating the maze eating up all the exhausted retreating units with your caltrop- and trip-immune cavalry. What does that have to do with 100 meter walls? Nothing. Enjoy your walls!

Precisely. This would allow for both the defender and the attacker to utilize units to a greater degree inside the actual towers. A siege tower would be made to take 2 units maybe, where you can add an archer/missile unit and regular infantry unit to breach the wall. Same can be done for the actual defense towers of the city.

Just a guess from a programmer who has done no modding to CA's games, but if CA didn't see fit to assign multiple units to a device then it's extremely unlikely that they spent time making this a feature.

Maybe the defense towers can have like unlimited ammo in them and the archers can keep firing? Basically i would be excited to see walls as a better part of defence as i normally just defend the square.

The AI in native is easily defeated when attacking a garrison of peasants using a stack of cohorts when facing epic walls. How would making sections of the wall replenish ammunition make this any less of a slaughter? Do you introduce unrealistic offensive artillery towers like native has? Accept that it will be unbalanced?


My suggestion: try finding a way to increase or spread out the number of archer holes and model a new, larger, wall. Forget about adding multiple units to a siege tower or making wall towers provide cover and ammo. And don't make them shoot artillery bolts or everyone will hate you.

And if you can't find a way to introduce a new and improved wall type, then you're back to Drake's point: a higher wall is just a higher wall and is neither less nor more defensible. Thus most people won't care.

If it's just for cosmetics then ignore my whole post.

[Outlawed]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes, because this is Your Thread and all commentary is therefore OP-related.

All I was saying is that AI siege battles in Native RTW invariably result in an imitation of pacman with you navigating the maze eating up all the exhausted retreating units with your caltrop- and trip-immune cavalry. What does that have to do with 100 meter walls? Nothing. Enjoy your walls!


Just a guess from a programmer who has done no modding to CA's games, but if CA didn't see fit to assign multiple units to a device then it's extremely unlikely that they spent time making this a feature.


The AI in native is easily defeated when attacking a garrison of peasants using a stack of cohorts when facing epic walls. How would making sections of the wall replenish ammunition make this any less of a slaughter? Do you introduce unrealistic offensive artillery towers like native has? Accept that it will be unbalanced?


My suggestion: try finding a way to increase or spread out the number of archer holes and model a new, larger, wall. Forget about adding multiple units to a siege tower or making wall towers provide cover and ammo. And don't make them shoot artillery bolts or everyone will hate you.

And if you can't find a way to introduce a new and improved wall type, then you're back to Drake's point: a higher wall is just a higher wall and is neither less nor more defensible. Thus most people won't care.

If it's just for cosmetics then ignore my whole post.

Thanks for the great comment. Maybe adding ammo in the walls and making the walls fire bolts and what not is far-fetched. But, siege towers could be made to fire bolts as they did at Tyre for example. The main reason I'm calling for bigger walls is for bigger siege engines. There are some cosmetic factors and historical factors associated of course.

[leseras]

Hmm I wouldnt mind bigger walls. Might be more interesting. Maybe have the towers shoot more arrows and stuff?

[Outlawed]

Hmm I wouldnt mind bigger walls. Might be more interesting. Maybe have the towers shoot more arrows and stuff?

Precisely. This would allow for both the defender and the attacker to utilize units to a greater degree inside the actual towers. A siege tower would be made to take 2 units maybe, where you can add an archer/missile unit and regular infantry unit to breach the wall. Same can be done for the actual defense towers of the city.

[leseras]

Maybe the defense towers can have like unlimited ammo in them and the archers can keep firing? Basically i would be excited to see walls as a better part of defence as i normally just defend the square. They should be made thicker to contain a full unit's width too cause at times the unit seems abit thinned. I don't like that.

[Outlawed]

Maybe the defense towers can have like unlimited ammo in them and the archers can keep firing? Basically i would be excited to see walls as a better part of defence as i normally just defend the square. They should be made thicker to contain a full unit's width too cause at times the unit seems abit thinned. I don't like that.

At the siege of Tyre, Alexander the great built towers that went up to 50 m high. That would leave the actual wall at about 150 ft. I'd say the biggest wall in the game go up to 50-60 ft relative to the units. Doubling that would probably do history some justice.

[leseras]

Yeah i understand what you are trying to achieve here. Go for it man!

[empr guy]

idk all bigger walls would do is mabe make it look better, but mabe not. Most fighting in cities is in the streets and the wall battle usually only lasts a little bit. I know historical features are good but i think other more important things can be addresed.

[Delta21]

Hey guys, in RTW the walls of cities and forts seem ridiculously down sized by any scale when compared to actual sizes of walls in ancient history. Walls towered to up to 350 feet at some occasions. Is anyone currently making a mod to address this issue? If not, then I think it would be quite intense if a team would start working on a final realism project, cooperating with the RTR team, to create a truly realistic experience that would mark, perhaps, the end of RTW modding. Its getting old.

If you were laconian, you would have realized by now how futile walls are and how stupid your question is thought of by any man who's got ballz.

P.S.: THIS! IS!SP...we don't have walls here btw so come to our city and get your pathetic persian faces pwned...ARTA!!!!!!


On a different tone....this might not be a good idea...but having characters do certain improvements for walls would be extremely awesome.

e.g.: If some general has Archymedes(or some other smart greek dude), the walls would automatically multi-level(have several levels for supporting troops) and "grow" little holes in them, so that you can have a gajillion archers on them, and make them extremely hard to conquer.(+ walls have extra endurance and soldiers would actually have enough guts to put their damned hands on the ladders and push them back....not to mention slanted walls so that the siege tower platform thingy couldn't reach the walls, sap point being the only reasonable siege alternative). Optionally...the walls of the capital would have awesome bronze mirrors that would burn anything made out of wood....and not only, making it an unconquerable bastion of defense

[vanity]

Optionally...the walls of the capital would have awesome bronze mirrors that would burn anything made out of wood....and not only, making it an unconquerable bastion of defense

I'd rather see a mod changing city blueprints and removing 90% of the buildings before higher walls, but that's just my opinion. I think fort battles are so much more fun because they are relatively empty. I guess increasing the distance 3-10x between the walls and the interior would also work.

[empr guy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If you were laconian, you would have realized by now how futile walls are and how stupid your question is thought of by any man who's got ballz.

P.S.: THIS! IS!SP...we don't have walls here btw so come to our city and get your pathetic persian faces pwned...ARTA!!!!!!


On a different tone....this might not be a good idea...but having characters do certain improvements for walls would be extremely awesome.

e.g.: If some general has Archymedes(or some other smart greek dude), the walls would automatically multi-level(have several levels for supporting troops) and "grow" little holes in them, so that you can have a gajillion archers on them, and make them extremely hard to conquer.(+ walls have extra endurance and soldiers would actually have enough guts to put their damned hands on the ladders and push them back....not to mention slanted walls so that the siege tower platform thingy couldn't reach the walls, sap point being the only reasonable siege alternative). Optionally...the walls of the capital would have awesome bronze mirrors that would burn anything made out of wood....and not only, making it an unconquerable bastion of defense

the irony of how you called his idea stupid and then posted the worst idea of "improving" sieges ever is delicious

[Delta21]

the irony of how you called his idea stupid and then posted the worst idea of "improving" sieges ever is delicious

I didn't call his idea stupid...I told him that if he were a spartan he would have thought that his idea is stupid...please READ and UNDERSTAND before you WRITE.

[empr guy]

I didn't call his idea stupid...I told him that if he were a spartan he would have thought that his idea is stupid...please READ and UNDERSTAND before you WRITE.

If you were laconian, you would have realized by now how futile walls are and how stupid your question is ...

? you said if he was a laconian he would have realized it was stupid, not if he was a spartan it would seem stupid.

you should also know Laconia is a region of greece contaning many cities and towns, not just sparta. Perhaps it is you who should learn before you write.

still, my main point was that your ideas were terrible. Having characters add defensive layers to walls make absolutly no sense, and destroying all use of siege engines wont improve the game at all.

[Delta21]

? you said if he was a laconian he would have realized it was stupid, not if he was a spartan it would seem stupid.

you should also know Laconia is a region of greece contaning many cities and towns, not just sparta. Perhaps it is you who should learn before you write.

still, my main point was that your ideas were terrible. Having characters add defensive layers to walls make absolutly no sense, and destroying all use of siege engines wont improve the game at all.

Are you saying that the other laconians were extreme cowards? My point was that they never ran from a fight and cowered behind walls. Besides...what does that have to do with anything? Whether I said spartans or laconians is really irrelevant to what you tried to prove.

"still, my main point"....really, then why didn't you say that straight away? Are you trying to justify yourself now that I didn't call his ideas stupid.

P.S.: Archimedes did order troops to dig holes(without damaging its structure ofcourse) into Syracuse's walls when being charged with defensive duties of the city, so that more soldiers could fire their arrows at one time and provide better offensive power...also he had definitely thought of many places where his discoveries in the realm of physics of mathematics could be applied, warfare not being ignored at all
"having characters add defensive layers to walls make absolutly no sense" are you doubting that there were men in ancient times that were experts in defensive structures' architechture ande mechanisms?
If there were siege towers, tunnels, battering rams, and all of that beautiful stuff for the siegers, do you think that the besieged had nothing of their own to protect them?