Thread Tools
Old September 25, 2001, 08:17   #1
FrantzX
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Warlord
 
FrantzX's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 175
City Walls
Shouldn't Walls go obsolete around the discovery of gunpower? I mean, I don't think a city has had a wall build around it since ~1500. And without walls, the modern game will be alot harder beacuse you will have to keep battle away from your cities so they don't get wrecked.
FrantzX is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 08:32   #2
Adagio
staff
Spore
Deity
 
Adagio's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,112
I agree, it seems a little strange that you still can build citywalls in the 20th century
__________________
This space is empty... or is it?
Adagio is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 09:46   #3
Mahdimael
Prince
 
Mahdimael's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
Posts: 347
I think it would probably be the other way around- you can build walls, but certain units will be able to go around them or even potentially destroy them (?)
__________________
----
"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education" -Mark Twain
Mahdimael is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:00   #4
Patriqvium
Prince
 
Patriqvium's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hysteria Arctica
Posts: 556
Alpha Centauri had the Blink Displacer ability, which allowed units equipped with it to bypass any base defenses.

So, it is possible that some modern-age units can bypass city walls... but I've got no idea which ones. Any suggestions?
__________________
Wiio's First Law: Communication usually fails, except by accident.
Patriqvium is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:05   #5
DonJoel
Warlord
 
DonJoel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 123
How about all of them?
But then you have to change the entire combat system and i dont think thats anything i want. Perhaps for civ4.
DonJoel is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 10:08   #6
Triped
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Posts: 225
Walls would still help (to an extent)

Walls can keep modern-day infantry from marching straight in...obviously artillery could shell over. The Blink Displacer was a stroke of genius, in my opinion (just a little expensive)
Triped is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 17:30   #7
Mihai
CTP2 Source Code Project
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 174
After gunpowder the wall don't dissapear, just became thicker and became known as fortification. The ones from Sevastopol had given germans a hard time in 1942.
__________________
"Respect the gods, but have as little to do with them as possible." - Confucius
"Give nothing to gods and expect nothing from them." - my motto
Mihai is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 17:59   #8
Bill3000
King
 
Bill3000's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of Soloralism
Posts: 2,246
In Civ2, the Howitzer ignored city walls, and the rules could be easily implented as simple as changing a 0 to 1. (Actually, that was what you had to do. )

I'm sure that there will be some rule like that - I mean, they have Air transporting, something not possible in Civ2.
__________________
"Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara
"Bill3000: The United Demesos? Boy, I was young and stupid back then.
Jasonian22: Bill, you are STILL young and stupid."

"is it normal to imaginne dartrh vader and myself in a tjhreee way with some hot chick? i'ts always been my fantasy" - Dis
Bill3000 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 20:13   #9
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
It's a nice look to have the walls still be there, but I agree they don't serve a whole lot of purpose in the modern age. Maybe they could only provide 1/4 protection or something after a certain year.
saracen31 is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 20:35   #10
Madine
Rise of Nations Multiplayer
Warlord
 
Madine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 224
If you think of improvements as concepts it makes more sense.

If city walls became obsolete than other improvements should become obsolete too.
Madine is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 21:39   #11
Rakki
Warlord
 
Rakki's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 160
I think city walls should be ignored by modern age military units (such as jet fighters, tanks and whatever), but still exist in the modern age so it provides protection against infantry and "ancient" units... we must assume that the upkeep also goes into progressively upgrading the city's defenses...... (keep pesky phalanx out, perhaps)

And if a city is attacked, there should always be the chance that population goes down (a stray shell detonates a stockpile) and a city improvement being destroyed ( there goes the aqueduct). This should encourage players to build fortifications on their boundaries and station troops in there... just like real life

I mean, after all, only in dire cases do you want to fight in cities. Urban warfare is expensive in both casualties and economic damage. They basically reduced Stalingrad to rubble.... of course, if you choose to fortify your units in the city, sure..... but you have to deal with the collateral damage....
Rakki is offline  
Old September 25, 2001, 22:22   #12
Nenad
Chieftain
 
Nenad's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Kragujevac, Serbia, Yugoslavia
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally posted by ADG
I agree, it seems a little strange that you still can build citywalls in the 20th century
As far as I remember, in WWI Belgium defense against Germans was based on fortified cities (Antwerp and some more). So, it's not silly to have the city walls in 20th century, but yes, it's maybe silly to build it at that era.
Nenad is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 11:34   #13
Adagio
staff
Spore
Deity
 
Adagio's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 11,112
Quote:
Originally posted by Nenad


As far as I remember, in WWI Belgium defense against Germans was based on fortified cities (Antwerp and some more). So, it's not silly to have the city walls in 20th century, but yes, it's maybe silly to build it at that era.
it will still work at some point, but how many cities have actually built a city wall in the last 50 years?
__________________
This space is empty... or is it?
Adagio is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 11:44   #14
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally posted by ADG


it will still work at some point, but how many cities have actually built a city wall in the last 50 years?
Simple solution: Rename "city walls" to "city fortifications."
If Firaxis doesn't do it, then just do it in your own mind.
__________________
JB
I play BtS (3.19) -- Noble or Prince, Rome, marathon speed, huge hemispheres (2 of them), aggressive AI, no tech brokering. I enjoy the Hephmod Beyond mod. For all non-civ computer uses, including internet, I use a Mac.
Jaybe is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 11:59   #15
Pingu:
Chieftain
 
Pingu:'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Exeter, England
Posts: 64
City Walls are vital to the pre gunpowder warfare, but it's not the warfare that's made walls obselete, it's the cities.

Up until the agricultural revolution most city dwelling people lived inside the walls of the city, after it and the population expanded outside the walls. Perhaps a wall is good only for certain city size, once you get larger than a size 8 city (for example), the old wall becomes obselete and you have to build another one, which is much more expensive to maintain.

The way I'd like to see modern defense dealt with is something like the "Active Defender" thing in CTP.


Pingu:
Pingu: is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 12:03   #16
Triped
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Caledonia, Illinois, USA
Posts: 225
Well, with the U.N. ban on hurting civilians ( ), walls around cities don't matter...keep in mind that fortifications have gotten more advanced.
Triped is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 12:14   #17
weini
Settler
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
One should not be able to build City Walls after the Invention of Industrialization and further the existing City Walls should disappear. During Indisrialization most City outgrew their City Walls so they lost their point.
weini is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 12:17   #18
me_irate
Warlord
 
me_irate's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 149
I like the idea of city size being decreased by attack. I believe that a 10% loss per attack on a city would be adaquate. a size thirty city would lose 3 a size 10, 1 and anything a between those numbers would be a percentage. for instance a size 24 city would lose 2 and have a 40% chance of losing a third. Perhaps this could even work for cities less than size 10. This loss of pop would give added incentive to keep your fighting outside of cities.

How often do you see military units stationed in a city, they are usually around the city in millitary bases. This would make the game much more realistic.

For example sure, you can have city walls and get the 50% bonus, but you will lose 2-3 citizens at the expense of that bonus. you would be better of pre-empting an attack and getting no bonus, but saving your citzens. This would make civ warfare mirror modern warfare. For example the germans were getting there but kicked by the russians clear back into germany, but when they retreated back into berlin, they were able to hold them off for a good bit of time. This proved to be costly for all, the german civilians, and the russians some 3 million soldiors. This shows that cities give defensive bonus's(even without walls) but the collateral damage is emence.
me_irate is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 13:49   #19
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
It should'nt be possibile to build City Walls in big cities,
that is impossibile.
Look Rome for example:
It had no City Walls because it had 1,000,000 people

Maybe there should be some limit, like 12 Pop size.
player1 is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 13:55   #20
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
blah de blah. city walls should just work on pre-industrial units. flat out.

(remember we saw war chariots and musketeers in the same pic)
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 13:57   #21
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
Quote:
Originally posted by Nenad


As far as I remember, in WWI Belgium defense against Germans was based on fortified cities (Antwerp and some more). So, it's not silly to have the city walls in 20th century, but yes, it's maybe silly to build it at that era.
My grandfather is from Kragujevac... haha

Prussian cities had walled fortifications... I say had, because when the German's declared War, the artillery reduced them to rubble. Governments don't build city walls anymore because they are useless. There are other barriers, but they serve different purposes. My vote is for obsoletion of city walls upon the invention of breech-loading, rifled field artillery.
Sava is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 15:03   #22
Sandman
King
 
Sandman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Just one more thing
Posts: 1,733
My suggestion is that city walls reduce population growth after a certain population size has been reached, because of overcrowding.
As well as being a defensive measure, city walls also combated smuggling in and out of the city, so I think they should reduce corruption.
In the modern age, I think a cities defense should depend on the number of improvements it has. Say a 5% defense bonus for every improvement. So a city with 20 improvements will have its defense doubled. Every time there is an attack, an improvement should be destroyed, reducing the defense a bit. And only infantry type units could take advantage of this. My inspiration is of course Stalingrad, with the ferocious battles for the tractor factory and the grain silo.
Sandman is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 15:26   #23
jdd2007
NationStates
King
 
jdd2007's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
i think that there should be city walls late in game, but they shouldnt be very effective against most units and shouldnt have any effect on ranged, sea and air units. there should instead be new improvements like entrenchments, tank traps and bomb shelters to replace older ones.
jdd2007 is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 17:08   #24
Phutnote
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 43
I agree with Mihai.

City walls were tall and thin until the invention of gunpowder, which made them obsolete. The cannonballs could knock'em down.

There was an enormous construction blitz to change city walls at this time from tall and thin to short, squat, amd reinforced with earth after the discovery of gunpowder.

Some ancient fortresses had their thin was buttressed with earth and additional stone to shore them up against bombardment. I believe Rhodes is a prime example of this sort of change, at least on certain segments of the fort.

City fortifications were built until WWII. After that, I'm not sure anyone built more. Their usefulness was limited because the Germans would go around most or take'm by surprise with commandos and paratroops/gliders. Even so, they had a hell of a time at Sevastopol.

I think there should be a transition between old city wall and city fortifications, like there is with barracks. Walls become obsolete, you gotta build fortifications instead. And these would probably be mostly, if not entirely, obsolete by the later 20th century.

Phutnote
Phutnote is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 17:30   #25
Bleyn
Warlord
 
Local Time: 06:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 254
Quote:
Originally posted by Pingu:
City Walls are vital to the pre gunpowder warfare, but it's not the warfare that's made walls obselete, it's the cities.
That is not exactly correct. The changes in warfare that occured with gunpowder-based weapons did make pre-gunpowder city walls obselete. Yes, many of the cities grew way too large for city walls, but the changes that came with gunpowder did require a whole new design method for city walls. Let me go into the historical details a little and maybe it will help.

First, I will remind everyone, just so we are all on the same track, that pre-gunpowder walls for fortifications and small cities were the classical straight up and down affairs. They looked like giant castle walls, which is what they really were.

It was not actually gunpowder that made these old walls obselete. A fortress could hold out quite well against an attackre just armed with muskets. It was the invention of the metallurgical techniques that came about in the creation of the first truely useful cannon that put the nail in the coffin of those old walls. The very first cannons weren't powerful enough to do real damage to the old walls because the metallurgy didn't allow it. They couldn't pack in enough powder without the cannon exploding. Once they learned how to make cannons that were strong enough to take a useful charge of powder, things changed.

The old straight up and down walls just could not stand in a contest with cannon. They fell in very short amounts of time, far shorter than those same walls would have stood up against catapults and the like. IIRC, it had to do with the angle that the projectiles came in at, and how fast. Catapults lobbed their ammo at a fair angle, and didn't exactly throw them that fast. Yes, it was fast, but not as fast as cannon. Cannons shot their ammo at much flatter tragectories, allowing more of the kinetic energy to transfer straight inwards on the walls.

What military engineers eventually learned was that they had to use a completely different design for their fortifications. Walls had to be much thicker and shorter. They also had an angle built into the face of the wall, a gradually slooped area in front of the wall used to deflect cannonballs being shot at the base of the wall upwards and over the walls.

At the same time, they also made other changes in their designs, gone was the classical square shaped fort. What appeared in its place is a fortress with a shape somewhat like that of a multi-pointed star. This had two purposes, it made it much harder for the beseigers to find spots where they could fire cannon straight at the walls, and at the same time allowed for overlapping field of fire from the defenders. And these are just some of the changes that occured.

The combined effect of these changes was to bring back some of the prior pairity between beseiger and beseiged. A properly built fortification in good condidtion with a good amount of defenders and supplies could once again expect to last weeks or even months against a seige.

However, these fortifications took much longer to build and were much more costly than before. Only fairly small cities typically had them. Although there is one instance where an entire peninsula of appreciable size actually received what was then considered modern scientific fortifications. This was the peninsula where Lisbon resides in Portugul. In 1809 or 1810, Wellington spent millions to have several lines of fortifications built along the neck of peninsula. Those forts, the Lines of Torres Verde (sp?) can still be seen today. The French army they were built to defend Lisbon against took one look at them and went home without ever contesting them.
Bleyn is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 17:59   #26
Kc7mxo
King
 
Kc7mxo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,038
I must agree with the fellow that said if walls become obsolete, then so should other buildings.

None of the major industrial nations have had a REAL war since ww2. All the super powers have mostly fought against lesser opponents.

And while the development of air power and artillery has reduced the usefullness of walls, treches, minefields, bunkers, concrete spikes (to prevent tank traffic) are among the myrriad things which would still be usefull in a war which lasted long enough to need them.

I Think teh way civ 2 did it was simplest, and best. Certain uints ignore them, other don't. Anything which has to get up close and personal (tanks, infantry) go against eh walls. anything which doesn't (artillery, aircraft, ships) doesn't.

at least it seems to me that the battleship ignored walls, but i may be incorrect. its been a long time since i last played a game of civ2.
Kc7mxo is offline  
Old September 26, 2001, 22:38   #27
colossus
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 141
Thinking about the gameplay and reality, it is better to have post-gunpowder unit ignoring the city wall than simply make city wall obsolete.

Just recall that a chariot and a cannon can appear in the same turn, the city wall isn't quite effective against the cannon, but is absolutely useful against the chariot.
colossus is offline  
Old September 27, 2001, 02:04   #28
Rufus T. Firefly
King
 
Rufus T. Firefly's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Kabul, baby!
Posts: 2,876
Histories of walled cities often talk about the walls being "breeched," generally through assault from big weapons (catapults, cannons, artillery) as well as mines (read the history of the Ottoman assault on Rhodes for a great description of mining warfare). It seems to me there's a reasonable and realistic solutions for CIV: give a catapult assault on a walled city a 1/32 chance of destroying the walls; cannon assault 1/16 chance; artillery assault 1/4 chance.

Also, diplos and spies shouldn't be able to destroy walls, but should be able pay money in order to render them innefective for one turn; this would be the equivalent of a diplo or spy bribing someone to open the city gates, which happened all the time in walled city warfare.
__________________
"If crime fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight?"— George Carlin
Rufus T. Firefly is offline  
Old September 27, 2001, 10:24   #29
FrantzX
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton Team
Warlord
 
FrantzX's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally posted by Bleyn
However, these fortifications took much longer to build and were much more costly than before. Only fairly small cities typically had them. Although there is one instance where an entire peninsula of appreciable size actually received what was then considered modern scientific fortifications. This was the peninsula where Lisbon resides in Portugul. In 1809 or 1810, Wellington spent millions to have several lines of fortifications built along the neck of peninsula. Those forts, the Lines of Torres Verde (sp?) can still be seen today. The French army they were built to defend Lisbon against took one look at them and went home without ever contesting them.
First a comment. The French would of retreated anyway. They're the French, remember?

And for modern combat, wouldn't armies fortified in your cities cause unhappiness in democracies and the ilk? Heh, with no walls and this, defending your empire will become MUCH more... interesting.
FrantzX is offline  
Old September 27, 2001, 10:47   #30
HalfLotus
Never Ending Stories
King
 
HalfLotus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:46
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,238
I hope city walls are done somewhat differently.
In Civ 2 it was always….investigate city to see if it had walls, then send diplos or spys until the wall was gone, then assault. Too few strategic options for beating city walls.
Then again I never was big on the howitzer rush. Wasn’t realistic or fun for me.
HalfLotus is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:46.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team