A Thread Is Like a Box of Chocolates, You Never Know What You're Gonna Get...

TechWins · January 11, 2002, 21:03

With a lot of discussion on the retreat ability as of late it made me think of a great idea for the retreat ability and city walls. However, I doubt Firaxis would listen to any such idea, and I think you know just why that is so.

City walls would no longer be built around the actual city, instead they would be built around the city radius. Yes, you would still be building City Walls the same way you do now, but the walls would appear around the city radius. With the walls being around the city radius, City Walls no longer have any effect when the actual city is attacked. City Walls have offer a different bonus. It will take one full turn to enter a city radius when being an enemy if the city has City Walls. This means that if a Horsemen with a movement of 2 was right outside City Walls and decided to move inside of the walls the Horsemen's turn would be completely over. Secondly, when an enemy unit is inside the City Walls it will lose all retreat abilities if were to have one. Also, all Barbarians should be prevented from entering a city radius that is surrounded by City Walls. The two advantages, I think, represent the true nature of city walls more clearly. City Walls are not neccasarily meant to increase defense directly, yet, defense is increased indirectly because city walls make it much more difficult for an enemy to attack because of movement and retreating problems. At least this is how I see city walls' military purpose. Even if this is not a better representation of city walls realistically, it is still a much better represenatation of city walls for gameplay purposes.

As well as the 'City Walls' idea, the idea of having only certain terrains allow you to retreat should be implemented.

GePap · January 11, 2002, 21:28

While I agree that the effects of city walls are inderect in terms of defense, having to build th ewall outside the city bring up avarious questions:
Could they be built facing the sea, which would mena on a sea square? If not, small cities become better targets fro amphibious assault.
Could the enemy bring guns within the walls? A cannon has arange of 1, which means it would have to be in the wall square to shoot within the city- which would mean that the gun is within the walls. In real life, this would be terrbile news for the defenders.
It is probably best to modify the bonuses city wall give intead of changing the way they are built.

Grrr · January 11, 2002, 21:41

Firstly, I don't build city walls as they're obsolete once your town becomes a city. Yes the name city walls is an oxymoron. A city in Civ3 can't have walls.

I dislike the idea, especially around sea squares, and for the fact that they can't be pillaged. Anyway, this city wall will be extremely big, as I mean, a tile in civ3 is calculated to be around 50x50 KM, so building a wall around the city radius would be 1000km long!!!, comparable to the Great Wall of China!

So no thanks, I'll stick to the original box of chocolates. Is that all right, Forest Gump!

justjake73 · January 11, 2002, 21:50

I no longer build walls if the city has any resonable expectation of reaching size 7 or higher. If it is not on a river and does needs an aqueduct to exceed size 6, I will build it until I have Construction. It is just a waste of time of your city is growing fast on irrigated Grasslands!

Willem · January 11, 2002, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
Firstly, I don't build city walls as they're obsolete once your town becomes a city. Yes the name city walls is an oxymoron. A city in Civ3 can't have walls.

I dislike the idea, especially around sea squares, and for the fact that they can't be pillaged. Anyway, this city wall will be extremely big, as I mean, a tile in civ3 is calculated to be around 50x50 KM, so building a wall around the city radius would be 1000km long!!!, comparable to the Great Wall of China!

So no thanks, I'll stick to the original box of chocolates. Is that all right, Forest Gump!

I agree. Building walls around your entire perimeter is definitely stretching the boundaries of historical realism. I much prefer the present system, even if it means that walls are pretty much useless things to build. They can still serve a function on frontier towns/garrisons though.

Grrr · January 11, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I agree. Building walls around your entire perimeter is definitely stretching the boundaries of historical realism. I much prefer the present system, even if it means that walls are pretty much useless things to build. They can still serve a function on frontier towns/garrisons though.

I find I never have towns. I use the "Size 6" strategy to pump out 1 per turn without any city size loss, and build up my other cities. I only build cities on rivers, or rushbuild aqueducts immediately!

The only place I build walls are my Colony Towns. That is: Towns used as colonies, as often the location is not good enough to grow to megapolopic preportions!

justjake73 · January 11, 2002, 22:01

When I first played, I clicked on a size 7 city and thought "My wall is crumbling!!!! Why??!?! WTF??!" I then found out about "cities" vs "towns"

Grrr · January 11, 2002, 22:07

Quote:

Originally posted by justjake73
When I first played, I clicked on a size 7 city and thought "My wall is crumbling!!!! Why??!?! WTF??!" I then found out about "cities" vs "towns"

The exact reason why not to build walls!

Willem · January 11, 2002, 22:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr

The exact reason why not to build walls!

Unless you do what I did and set it so that the Great Wall creates a wall in everyone of your new cities. Pretty useless Wonder otherwise.