Would you like To see walls on minor cities that historically had walls?

[jamreal18]

Is it possible?

Hope CA realize that many like to play the game according to history. I mean based on history.

If a city had walls historically, it should have walls in the game.

BEsides, there are many minor cities that had walls historically: Jerusalem, Syracuse, Tyre etc...

--------------------------------

I dont mean all minor cities.

What im trying to say is that when a city had walls historically, it should have walls. If it doesnt had wall historically, it shouldnt.

[xvin879x]

at least a palisade or something. or the town's wall would depend on the level of the town center.

[Humble Warrior]

Only if they fix the siege AI, otherwise, it`s pointless.

[Naked Emperor]

Only if they fix the siege AI, otherwise, it`s pointless.

I second that. At this moment in time it would be utterly pointless and it would only be relevant if the A.I learns to deal with walls.

I would like to see more building slots in cities and more variety of buildings and the option of building walls and upgrading them.

[Bethencourt]

Only if they fix the siege AI, otherwise, it`s pointless.

This, I voted yes in the hope they fix it, if not they better remove sieges or even battles.

[krisslanza]

I'd personally say no. But this is mainly because I feel that every city being a walled fortress is a bit unrealistic.
If it was added, I'd only say if the wall upgrades basically cost more then anything else in the game - say 100,000's of talents or something. Walls should only be reserved for select few settlements, rather then like every prior TW to now, them just being standard for everything.

Well, maybe a cheap wall could be cheap, but any serious walls with defenses (or actually designed to hold up under attack) should be massively expensive if it was an option. And it should take up a building slot and as minor settlements only have two, you'd have to really make a decision if they need a wall or not.

[Wicked Moose]

I would, yes.I was interested when CA announced the new system that should lead to less siege battles.However, in my games, all those sieges from previous TW games just get replaced by an uninteresting assault on a town without walls.So my suggestion: I had least siege battles in Roma Serructum 2. Every town has walls, you need at least two turns of sieging before you can attack (this can be replaced by an AI that prefers starving you over committing suicide) and movement points are much higher for armies, which makes it easier to go attack a besieging army. This turned all the siege battles into normal land battles outside of the walls between the besieger and a relieving army. This way my RS2 campaign battles were 90% land battles - 10% siege battles instead of the other way around.

[Steedward]

I'd like to see walls, and roads, appear as a subsystem of the current building menu. Maybe a small settlement should only be allowed to have small walls, a wooden palisade - just something to stop the one turn take over marauders whopming your crappy garrison (and, indeed, give your crappy garrison a better chance of holding out!).

The roads are also important - strategically you might want to leave roads rubbish in some settlements (I certainly did in my last M2 game, to slow advancing armies on the frontier), and good trading cities or troop recruitment hubs you would want upgraded roads.

Although, game is about making your own history - if I want my tiny backwater town to have the highest walls and the best roads in the world, and I have the money to finance it, I should be able to!

[krisslanza]

I'd like to see walls, and roads, appear as a subsystem of the current building menu. Maybe a small settlement should only be allowed to have small walls, a wooden palisade - just something to stop the one turn take over marauders whopming your crappy garrison (and, indeed, give your crappy garrison a better chance of holding out!).

The roads are also important - strategically you might want to leave roads rubbish in some settlements (I certainly did in my last M2 game, to slow advancing armies on the frontier), and good trading cities or troop recruitment hubs you would want upgraded roads.

Although, game is about making your own history - if I want my tiny backwater town to have the highest walls and the best roads in the world, and I have the money to finance it, I should be able to!

Don't the roads upgrade if the region is "rich" enough? They seem to be automated now.

I would say though that allowing walls to be built at a considerable expense might be a good option. Walls shouldn't be commonplace, but if you're rich (and you certainly will be at some point) I guess you may as well throw the coinage at something.

I still think it should take a building slot though, just so you don't see the AI building walls in everything anyway.

[Bantam]

Personally I would prefer minor city battles to be standard field battles with the city in the distance (like in Napoleon). That way we would have more field battles and avoid the 'siege spam' of RTW and M2TW.

[Langer Kerl]

Personally I would prefer minor city battles to be standard field battles with the city in the distance (like in Napoleon). That way we would have more field battles and avoid the 'siege spam' of RTW and M2TW.

They already moved in that direction by making the AI "sally forth" somewhat frequently, which turns the siege in an open field battle just like you described. Minor city battles are still too frequent though and too many of the towns are copy & paste.


Regarding sieges, I havent had a defensive siege battle in ages. The CAI avoids my fortified settlements like the plague, even the elite stacks during the civil war only besieged Athens but never attacked it. I dont need any extra garrison forces there because the AI never attacks (and if it ever did it would fail miserably, quite sadly).


Still, I am a fan of epic siege battles, be it Medieval, Rome I, Stronghold or whatever. Id like to see some more walled city battles as soon as the AI is somewhat fixed (at least MTW II level, please). Especially regarding famous cities which are only represented as minor ones as of yet.

[Trippinbillies]

id like to see walls but not epic stone walls all the way around. some early germanic cities (in game) have earth and wooden palisades for certain stretches and more easily attacked areas with no walls or just some wooden stakes funneling you into an area.

just some sort of combination of minor walls would be cool.

and some remote towns can stay without walls, that makes sense as well.

i believe that the idea of having no walls for minor towns and cities was to force us to have more open land battles. this for me has not even come close to happening.

How about you guys?

[krisslanza]

id like to see walls but not epic stone walls all the way around. some early germanic cities (in game) have earth and wooden palisades for certain stretches and more easily attacked areas with no walls or just some wooden stakes funneling you into an area.

just some sort of combination of minor walls would be cool.

and some remote towns can stay without walls, that makes sense as well.

i believe that the idea of having no walls for minor towns and cities was to force us to have more open land battles. this for me has not even come close to happening.

How about you guys?

The decision was made to make the settlements distinct and different. There's no point in having major/minor settlements, if they're all functionally the same. The idea was you can have your minor settlements specialize in say, providing food for the region if you want, but you'll risk an army snatching away your food supplies due to their un-walled nature.

Major settlements have far more building options, but you only have one per region so you have to rely on minor settlements to support it.

[Totalheadache]

The decision was made to make the settlements distinct and different. There's no point in having major/minor settlements, if they're all functionally the same. The idea was you can have your minor settlements specialize in say, providing food for the region if you want, but you'll risk an army snatching away your food supplies due to their un-walled nature.

Major settlements have far more building options, but you only have one per region so you have to rely on minor settlements to support it.

no i think they chose not to have walls for majority of settlements because they knew A) the siege a.i is terrible B) time/money/budget.

[krisslanza]

no i think they chose not to have walls for majority of settlements because they knew A) the siege a.i is terrible B) time/money/budget.

If you prefer conspiracy theories and pessimism, sure you can believe that.
Every settlement having walls is just silly. Walls are expensive, you have to knock them down and rearrange them if you need more room - or you just build most of the city outside the walls. Which, you'll note, the game shows.

But either way, not every single settlement in history has been a walled fortress. Only important ones had walls, because they're bloody expensive and in most cases, a waste of money and resources.

[Aenima]

If you prefer conspiracy theories and pessimism, sure you can believe that.
Every settlement having walls is just silly. Walls are expensive, you have to knock them down and rearrange them if you need more room - or you just build most of the city outside the walls. Which, you'll note, the game shows.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's very possible. After all, the siege AI is absolutely dreadful, so if I was in CA's shoes I'd definitely try to avoid siege battles if I could. But then again, it's very likely that they made this decision before realising how terrible the AI would be at attacking walled cities, especially since in several battles the AI just got themselves killed rushing the flag even on minor settlements for me.

But either way, not every single settlement in history has been a walled fortress. Only important ones had walls, because they're bloody expensive and in most cases, a waste of money and resources.

As already mentioned, Syracuse and Jerusalem don't have walls, and yet historically they did. More places are probably lacking walls that should have them, than would be given walls that historically didn't if everywhere was to have them.




EDIT: to put it into perspective, here's how it is:


In the province of Italia, only Rome has walls, even though a quick google search brings up evidence of Roman walls of Ariminum, walls around Neapolis and finally Velathri had Etruscan walls, and I can't find anything to suggest that the Romans tore them down when they took it.

In the province of Magna Graecia only Brundisium has walls, even though Syracuse and Lilybaeum had walls. Cosentia was the capital of the Bruttii tribe, and wiki mentions walls in its defence against the barbarians (after the fall of Rome) Given its history, I would assume that some form of walls existed beforehand.

I could go on, but the general point is that the choice to have some places without walls is poor, in my opinion, and despite many people saying otherwise, is probably not historically accurate at all. After all, most settlements in this game are in it because they're major settlements, so it doesn't make sense not to give the walls.

[Humble Warrior]

If you prefer conspiracy theories and pessimism, sure you can believe that.
Every settlement having walls is just silly. Walls are expensive, you have to knock them down and rearrange them if you need more room - or you just build most of the city outside the walls. Which, you'll note, the game shows.

But either way, not every single settlement in history has been a walled fortress. Only important ones had walls, because they're bloody expensive and in most cases, a waste of money and resources.

It`s obvious you don`t know what you`re talking about. There is nothing conspiracy theory about what he said. It makes total sense. Everything else you say shows an incredible lack of understanding and only serves to show how desperate you are to absolve CA of everything that`s wrong with the game.

Seriously, you should stop, and then people wouldn`t know just how little you actually know.

[Modestus]

The decision was made to make the settlements distinct and different. There's no point in having major/minor settlements, if they're all functionally the same. The idea was you can have your minor settlements specialize in say, providing food for the region if you want, but you'll risk an army snatching away your food supplies due to their un-walled nature.

Major settlements have far more building options, but you only have one per region so you have to rely on minor settlements to support it.

So its like France in ETW one major city like Paris and a load of little farms or temples only difference you can conquer them in RTW2, would that be a fair assessment? If not explain more to me.

And I think its fairly obvious at this stage why most of the regions don’t have walls.

[krisslanza]

So its like France in ETW one major city like Paris and a load of little farms or temples only difference you can conquer them in RTW2, would that be a fair assessment? If not explain more to me.

And I think its fairly obvious at this stage why most of the regions don’t have walls.

I didn't play ETW so I can't really say how ETW handled it.

But maybe in a way. I remember in pre-release stuff explaining how they wanted to change up siege battles, because every settlement was - more or less - the same. The region idea came up as a way to make it so you could decide to conquer the food production first, or the troops. Stuff like that. In a way, minor settlements fulfill this role - they can produce up to level 3 buildings, such as temples, farms, troops, and equipment.

This in turn frees up those slots in a major settlement, which can build Level 4. These Level 4's are better then the 3's the Minors get, but then its a tradeoff given only Major Settlements can build things like Training buildings, city centers, etc.

Minor settlements also lack walls to make them more vulnerable. You have to kind of keep an eye out for them - especially if that settlement is producing your food surplus.

[Trippinbillies]

Is it possible?

Hope CA realize that many like to play the game according to history. I mean based on history.

If a city had walls historically, it should have walls in the game.

BEsides, there are many minor cities that had walls historically: Jerusalem, Syracuse, Tyre etc...

--------------------------------

I dont mean all minor cities.

What im trying to say is that when a city had walls historically, it should have walls. If it doesnt had wall historically, it shouldnt.

Jerusalem and Syracuse without walls is just stupid. it shows a stubborn rigidness.