City walls become obsolete!

[Antônio Filho]

The bigger the city is, even in ancient times, the less effective the city walls get.

In modern times the armies try to intercept the enemy forces as far from their cities as they can, and the city walls reverse this concept by giving advantage to those who defend inside the city.

As time passes the armies have to try to defend their territory away from the cities.

The natural evolution of the 'city walls' (fortified city) might be the 'castles', and then the 'medieval borough', and finally the modern cities which have no fortification at all (but some other kinds of defensive strategies).

It's a backwards evolution. In antiquity, every city-state had to be fortified to survive longer. Nowadays an army ostensively guarding the territory is necessary to keep the country safe.

Taking the second world war as an example, we see that when the armies are defeated in the the battlefield it is quite easy to take over the cities, which happened to Paris, taken by the germans, and Berlin, taken by the soviets. Summing up, the sieged city/invaders paradigm is replaced by a more tactical, intelligent, chess-like one.

And by transferring the battles a little bit more to the fields the game becomes more dynamic which, by the way, gets a little boring towards the end of the game.

[djconklin]

>Taking the second world war as an example, we see that when the armies are defeated in the the battlefield it is quite easy to take over the cities, which happened to Paris, taken by the germans, and Berlin, taken by the soviets.

Even at that late stage of the war the Russkies lost ab't a million men trying to take Berlin. It was NOT easy. So, maybe the fortification itself should be obsolete, but for game purposes keep it in because the defenders can turn even the rubble of a building into a fortress.

[Lachu]

I think that we can provide city walls level. First level will protect up to 5 citizens against beign killed on attack, second level 10 citizens and last level 15 citizens. Also higher level will protect more units against killstack. First level protect 0 units against killstack, so we can have only one good defender, second level will protect 5 units against killstack, so we can have 6 good defender, etc. When killstack occurs on tile with city walls, unit_count_on_tile - protected_units - 1 will be killed, selecting random unit on each iteration.

The idea will prevent building strong army, because higher level will cost more money.

[Lachu]

Long time ago I have introduced idea about engineering points, which will be required on city grow. City with city walls will have bigger cost of engineering point than city without city wall. Once city doesn't provide some amount of engineering points, citizens are homeless and it was unhappy or doesn't born. This will provide more realistic gameplay, because city must expand city walls once city grown.

[djconklin]

>city must expand city walls once city grown.

Typically, they didn't do that. However, we do know that the walls around Jerusalem were expanded.

[Drachefly]

My thoughts on city walls were:

1) the main disadvantage of city walls is making it awkward to do business. So, I'd say all trade points from non-adjacent tiles are cut in half. Or maybe just a -25% flat penalty if that's a problem to do. Or -50% to arrows beyond the first 6, or something.

2) they get less significant over time. So, instead of a defense multiplier, I'd make them have a 3/4 chance to absorb damage directed to units defending the city, until the walls have absorbed 30 HP in one turn. In the ancient era, that's a massive bonus. In the modern era, that's a bit like having an extra armored unit there. This of course could be very awkward to program. hmmm.

[XYZ]

Because its related and is being discussed parallelly. Both suggestion could be combined?

City walls upgrade
Postby XYZ » Sun May 22, 2016 8:34 am

Playing freeciv I always had the problem of a too static game. At the beginning when city walls are not build the game is mobile and a frontal assault is often successfull, though not entirely cheap. But once walls are built the game goes into some sort of hibernation. Gains can only be achieved by difficult operations from the rear or by launching a blitz attack at turn change using a double move. Attacks can be achieved by attacking by river but that is predictabel and massive frontal assault even promote the enemy to veteran statu without attaining gains.

Also from a historic perspective it makes no scence that an ancient or medieval wall is still up to date in modern times. Most city walls were scrapped in the 19. century. Long before that forts replaced city walls around Renaissance. Only some of them were upgraded like in Metz or Przemyśl. And beside few exceptions they were obsolet by WWII.

In short: Walls are too powerfull for a structure that was build centuries ago. It needs at least one upgrade and has ultimately to make place for modern warfare where walls are no protection.
XYZ

Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:00 pm
Top
Re: City walls upgrade
Postby GriffonSpade » Thu May 26, 2016 4:30 am

To be fair, walls are always fairly effective against infantry (Though not against artillery, planes, etc) There exists the IgWall flag to make a unit ignore walls. (Currently I know at least the 'howitzer' unit has it.

Going back to even ancient units, it seems odd for a phalanx to have the same attack (1/2) as warriors (1/1). Should probably be 2/2 realistically.
GriffonSpade
Hardened

Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:41 pm
Top
Re: City walls upgrade
Postby XYZ » Tue May 31, 2016 8:05 am

It is true, they give protection though depending much on the kind of fortification. Also, only because a modern unit call itself infantry, it doesnt mean it only uses rifles. Infantry can be equipped with mortars, flame throwers and have anti-tank-guns. Infantry played a big role in crushing the Maginot Line, paratroopers skip frontal defense lines and attack from the rear.

I therefore would change my suggestion and make modern fortification not obsolet against modern infantry but lower they defense against them.

Phalanx were very good defenders but they were also very unmobile with they heavy armor in my opinion, I therefore don't know why they should get more attack strength?

[GriffonSpade]

It is true, they give protection though depending much on the kind of fortification. Also, only because a modern unit call itself infantry, it doesnt mean it only uses rifles. Infantry can be equipped with mortars, flame throwers and have anti-tank-guns. Infantry played a big role in crushing the Maginot Line, paratroopers skip frontal defense lines and attack from the rear.

I therefore would change my suggestion and make modern fortification not obsolet against modern infantry but lower they defense against them.

Using the Maginot Line is a non-sequitor. That's a fortified trench-line, not an enclosed area like a city wall or fortress. Paratroopers are a separate unit too. And don't forget that defending infantry would have mortars too. And AT guns are generally better at blowing holes in walls than killing people on the other side of them. Mind you, they would probably be included in Artillery rather than Infantry, so that's a moot point, as regular artillery are VERY good at shooting over walls with large explosives.(Sadly, no distinction between steam-era cannons and electric-era artillery is made). Destructable buildings, especially walls, would certainly make sense, though.

Phalanx were very good defenders but they were also very unmobile with they heavy armor in my opinion, I therefore don't know why they should get more attack strength?

Edit: a very similar topic is being discussed there: http://forum.freeciv.org/f/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=740 I moved the discussion over there.

Make note that the Phalanx would be the Hoplite Phalanx, not the Macedonian Pike Phalanx of Alexander the Great. That means shield walls and 12-foot spear hedges, not 18-foot, two-handed spear-hedges. Also note that modern soldiers carry around similar amounts of weight to armor in their kit. It doesn't affect their mobility as much as you'd think.

Defense receives a crapton of bonuses for various reasons.
Legion has 4 attack despite wearing armor that's just as heavy. Catching units is obviously not an issue here.
A phalanx was pretty much identical on attack and defense in real life.
Trying to fight people in full panoply with metal weapons, real armor, helmets, and highly-durable, perfectly-shaped for clashing large shields, using only wooden spears and wicker shields is not going to go well whether you're attacking OR defending, unless you SERIOUSLY stack things in your favor. So Warriors should generally lose badly unless they stack defense bonuses.

In short,
HOPLITE PHALANX: SUPERIOR. PERSIAN WARRIORS: INFERIOR.

Likewise, Pikemen should get the 2 attack too: So long as their target is on flat terrain, the Macedonian Phalanx is a decent attacker as well, even if they never won any major battles like that (They won minor battles against inferior forces like that, though. So there's precedence that they should be strong enough to defeat warriors on an open plain)

[XYZ]

Using the Maginot Line is a non-sequitor. That's a fortified trench-line, not an enclosed area like a city wall or fortress.

True, I wanted to argue that the "most" technological fortification of that time was ineffective against modern warfare and if the Maginot-Line woudn't do it, what would? And why arent there any modern city fortifications? I stick to my pledge to reduce defense bonus, since admittely walls aren't as useless as I potrayed, their defence bonus still was much reduced over time compared to ancient times or middle age.

Likewise, Pikemen should get the 2 attack too: So long as their target is on flat terrain, the Macedonian Phalanx is a decent attacker as well, even if they never won any major battles like that (They won minor battles against inferior forces like that, though. So there's precedence that they should be strong enough to defeat warriors on an open plain)

If you equal warrior = Germanic tribes and phalanx = Romans, phalanx should definetely get more attack strength. Maybe a bonus in forrest for the warriors? (A small tribute to Arminius )

[Drachefly]

Maybe lesser of +2 and +100% defense? That way it's overwhelming in ancient combat but a nice perk in modern.