Should walls be made significantly thicker?

[recentiy03]

I recall a similar thread on this subject a few days ago but I don't see it anywhere. In that thread, someone said it's possible to modify the strength of a wall and even the overall defenses of a castle, but do you think SS 6.5 should increase these features across the board? I recall watching the Tudors (feel free to LOL at me for referencing a TV show as if it is historically accurate...that is, assuming you know it isn't...) and the English were firing their cannons at Boulogne's walls for weeks and, despite their overwhelming firepower, they still had to dig a tunnel underneath the city in order to eventually sack it. At the very least, has their been any thought to increasing the strength of walls for huge cities? So Constantinople's walls are truly formidable? I know this is is difficult because units have a limited amount of gunpowder, so perhaps it's all equal in the end...but just curious if anyone agrees that a cities walls are destroyed too easily. Ladders/rams are one thing....but a few shots with a cannon shouldn't create a brand new entry point...IMHO.

[David93]

the siege of derry lasted 105 days under cannon and mortor fire, walls are quite tough. This is a back-water city in ireland btw.

[recentiy03]

I'll add, there was recently a thread about slowing expansion, and this would seem to be one of the most obvious ways to do so.

[Ichon]

I've been in favor of strengthening walls but lowering time it takes to starve out the garrison for awhile. Wood walls should only require 1 turn wait before garrison has to sally- that would be a 6 month to 1 year siege depending on your TPY. Each level of wall simply adds 1 turn. So huge walls are 5 turns at most not the 12 or whatever it is now. 5 turns is ample time for relief army to arrive and represents a 2.5 year siege at 2 TPY.

I actually wish there were a way to change how large a garrison can be inside the walls depending on their size as well. A small castle shouldn't be able to have a full army garrisoned inside.

If RTW2 is ever made I hope they make the turns a city can resist siege dependent on garrison size and port blockaded or not. So a small garrison behind huge walls with an open port might be able to withstand a siege of several years. A large garrison behind small wood walls with a blockaded port can't last more than 1 turn. I don't see how to make that work in MTW2 but still the current mechanic is just weird. Also I'd get rid of cannon towers. Maybe handgunners firing from cover but not cannons.

[recentiy03]

The time to starve out a city is a good idea to make the game more realistic, but it would probably make expansion even easier, not more difficult. I just feel like it's nearly impossible to defend an attack on a city when the AI sits there blowing 4 holes in my walls, 4 holes + the gate is too much. If they can sack the city with ladders and towers, good for them, but blowing multiple holes in a brick wall in a single attack to sack a city does not seem realistic. It takes time.

[Ichon]

The time to starve out a city is a good idea to make the game more realistic, but it would probably make expansion even easier, not more difficult. I just feel like it's nearly impossible to defend an attack on a city when the AI sits there blowing 4 holes in my walls, 4 holes + the gate is too much. If they can sack the city with ladders and towers, good for them, but blowing multiple holes in a brick wall in a single attack to sack a city does not seem realistic. It takes time.

If the walls are thicker and ammo of Mangonels reduced it might take more than 1 battle to knock a hole in the walls. Of course spies could still open the gates in 1 turn but I am not sure how to change that as also historically many castles/cities fell by treachery.

As far as defending a city- even with 4 holes in the walls you still have a huge advantage. Its usually not going to allow you to defend a city with a force 10% the size of the attackers which actually happened historically but with the current game mechanics that isn't realistic. Plus the whole siege is abstracted of several sieges throughout the region to establish control.

Slowed movement rates is a good idea if only to slow down expansion of any faction but I find it extremely irritating and totally removes RP. Also since it affects all factions it might not change the outcome much, just make it take an extra turn or 2.

[Re_Minder]

Could care less about thickness of walls, but if someone fixed them so that they'd become as beneficial to archers as they should, that person would be my God.

[David93]

Could care less about thickness of walls, but if someone fixed them so that they'd become as beneficial to archers as they should, that person would be my God.

How do you mean?

[bɑne]

How do you mean?

Battlements have never been properly implemented. Archers can't shoot like one would expect cause for them it is a wall without gaps - it is volley fire most of the time.

[FallLikeConimoes]

Not sure if it is possible, but i think it would be good if every turn you were attacking a settlement, if you had cannons, it did damage do the defences of the enemies wall, eventually forcing them to either sally out before their walls become to damaged or you attack with an easier job.
so basically;
Every turn = 5% damage to the wall if the attacking army has gunpowder units

[Forever Steadfast]

Going off of what FallLikeConimoes said about sieges and cumulative damage being done by cannons, another realistic-like ability would have the besiegers take casualties over the course of the siege as well. This could simulate the deaths a besieging army would inevitably take from archers upon battlements, disease, and other miscellaneous accidents.

[Lord Baal]

Battlements have never been properly implemented. Archers can't shoot like one would expect cause for them it is a wall without gaps - it is volley fire most of the time.

Not sure if it is possible, but i think it would be good if every turn you were attacking a settlement, if you had cannons, it did damage do the defences of the enemies wall, eventually forcing them to either sally out before their walls become to damaged or you attack with an easier job.
so basically;
Every turn = 5% damage to the wall if the attacking army has gunpowder units

Going off of what FallLikeConimoes said about sieges and cumulative damage being done by cannons, another realistic-like ability would have the besiegers take casualties over the course of the siege as well. This could simulate the deaths a besieging army would inevitably take from archers upon battlements, disease, and other miscellaneous accidents.

You three, consider yourself both +reped (no, no raped, reped!) and stealed! This is going to my utter wall of doom!

[th0mas890]

Not sure if it is possible, but i think it would be good if every turn you were attacking a settlement, if you had cannons, it did damage do the defences of the enemies wall, eventually forcing them to either sally out before their walls become to damaged or you attack with an easier job.
so basically;
Every turn = 5% damage to the wall if the attacking army has gunpowder units

Going off of what FallLikeConimoes said about sieges and cumulative damage being done by cannons, another realistic-like ability would have the besiegers take casualties over the course of the siege as well. This could simulate the deaths a besieging army would inevitably take from archers upon battlements, disease, and other miscellaneous accidents.

If memory serves right the latter suggestion was part of MTW but it also included the besieger taking some casualties also. The former may have also been part of MTW but I can't say for sure.

Nevertheless it would be great to see them implemented, along with the archer suggestion.

[ziserman]

If memory serves right the latter suggestion was part of MTW but it also included the besieger taking some casualties also. The former may have also been part of MTW but I can't say for sure.

The latter indeed was implemented in Viking Invasion. The former was never implemented.
By the by, I'd certainly vouch for these ideas as well.