Does anyone else miss the city stone walls in Rome II?

[Theo]

I was playing the Siege of Ravenna historical battle, and started to realize how much I miss stone walls in sieges. There are 4 settlements in the game that have actual stone walls, the rest of the cities in the game are surrounded by elevated hill-fort walls. I can understand why barbarian tribes would have settlements like this, but why the Romans as well? It is kind of anti-climactic besieging a level IV Antioch (one of the greatest cities in the world) and finding it's defenses are no more sophisticated than a 4th Century (B.C.) Britannic Oppida fort.

Isn't there some way CA can simply replace all high-tier Roman walls with the walls Ravenna has? And why did CA make this change in the first place? It just makes sieges easier for the defender as it is.

I know people will say "just wait for modders to do it", but there really isn't much reason for this not being the case in vanilla.

For Contrast, Antioch in Rome II:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=413498051

Antioch fully upgraded in Attila:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=413501185

A fully upgraded city can still be beautiful from certain angles, but still isn't aesthetically as pleasing as the cities from Rome II.

[Kraut and Tea]

Once the Assembly Kit is out we can replace them ourselves.

I am really looking forward to downloading maps of historical cities and rebuilding them.

[AnonMilwaukean]

Rome 2's walled settlements were a mess, though. Ironically, the barbarian settlements were the buggiest in R2, so I've been surprised to see exactly what you've pointed out: barbarian-style walls on most cities, even where not entirely logical. I'd anticipated that Attila would go the other route and have Roman style walls everywhere, and that the barbarian style walls would be done away with to save on having to make as many settlement maps.

But I think they went with the barbarian style oppidium walls because it meant fewer destructible segments, which means less of a problem for the AI to figure out where to place units. After all, in R2, while it was fun to be able to attack almost anywhere to breach the wall, the problem was that this then demanded way too much of an already suspect siege AI. Thus, in non-barbarian sieges in R2, the AI often simply let me breach a wall somewhere and walk in almost unopposed while their units sat some place else.

But who can say.

And as The Germans are coming said, regardless of why they went in this direction we can still eventually have modders change things up once the Kit is out.

[Theo]

But I think they went with the barbarian style oppidium walls because it meant fewer destructible segments, which means less of a problem for the AI to figure out where to place units. After all, in R2, while it was fun to be able to attack almost anywhere to breach the wall, the problem was that this then demanded way too much of an already suspect siege AI. Thus, in non-barbarian sieges in R2, the AI often simply let me breach a wall somewhere and walk in almost unopposed while their units sat some place else.

This does make sense. Sadly my experience has been that they have merely traded one AI fault for another. Now in large battles where the AI is receiving numerous reinforcements, the AI will often throw their entire army out at you (which is always disastrous for the AI) instead of playing defensively. Other times they simply send their entire army to defend the gates and get shredded by my missile units. Whereas in Rome II, when the AI had a large (but still outnumbered) garrison defending a well fortified city, they would often retreat further into the city, sending small groups (often composed of phalanxes) to defend choke points while their archers and towers picked apart your infantry. I've actually had the battle timer run out in siege battles in ROME II, because the AI armies played well enough defensively to hold me off while inflicting large casualties.

[Geronimo2006]

I assume the lack of stone walls in Atilla was an attempt by CA to reflect the military decay of the Late Empire in the West. Its notable though that in North Africa there seems to be more walled cities and this might reflect the sources on how the Vandals were unable to take Hippo Regis by siege (it was eventually handed to them by treaty) because of its strong walls.

[Darios]

I assume the lack of stone walls in Atilla was an attempt by CA to reflect the military decay of the Late Empire in the West. Its notable though that in North Africa there seems to be more walled cities and this might reflect the sources on how the Vandals were unable to take Hippo Regis by siege (it was eventually handed to them by treaty) because of its strong walls.

It's more CA trying to cover up Warscape's siege issues by turning "walls" into ramps. I do not mind seeing it for Germanic or Celtic settlements, but it makes Roman settlements appear completely uninspired. It's also a pity because CA actually did manage to, for the most part, correct the pathfinding issues with siege engines and walls on Rome 2. To me it is another sign of the obvious disconnect between the teams that patched Rome 2 and built Attila.