[Bug report] gunpowder weapons not ignoring walls

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see why gunpowder units ignore fortifications.

I think seige weapons should be given greater seige power. Which prompts the idea of a separate attack strength and a seige strength.

Because in modern warfare fortifications are a lot less useful, especially in large, sprawling modern cities. Most famous walled cities were very small by later standards...I believe Jericho was something like 30,000 people. Fortifications are also a lot less useful when there are thousands of people with guns of various sizes outside - I think that the defenders of the Alamo would have done a LOT better if the Texan and Mexican armies were made up of pre-gunpowder units.

[Enigma_Nova]

But then Canada would declare war on the weak defenders, and sneak some military in to take the city.

[Hauptman]

There are 2 types of city defense value.

Culture bonus. That is the bonus you get as your culture grows. 0% for size 1 culture, 20% for size 2 (the fat cross), 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% for legendary culture.

Fortification bonus is walls (50%) castle (30%?) and chitzen itza (25%)

If your city is already at 60% culture bonus building walls does NOTHING for that city. However if you capture a fresh city, then put up walls it will jump to 50% bonus imediatly.

Chitzen Itza however DOES add its bonus to your cultural defense or the wall bonus, wichever is higher.

Gunpowder Obsoletes walls but not culture, therefore you still need seige equipment to bring down the % defense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
I think that the defenders of the Alamo would have done a LOT better if the Texan and Mexican armies were made up of pre-gunpowder units.

That just says gunpowder units are a lot stronger than those that came before.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Hauptman
If your city is already at 60% culture bonus building walls does NOTHING for that city.

Would I have a double-layer defense though?

Suppose I have a city with 50% culture bonus in defense and walls. When somebody brings in some seige units to knock one of them down, will the other bonus take over?

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That just says gunpowder units are a lot stronger than those that came before.

No - both sides had gunpowder weapons, and the siege ended relatively quickly. If it was just that gunpowder weapons were stronger, all else being equal, then 250 soldiers with gunpowder weapons would hold out against 1600 soldiers with gunpowder weapons as long as 250 pre-gunpowder soldiers against 1600 soldiers with pre-gunpowder weapons.

But that's not the case. When your attackers have gunpowder weapons they are going to be a lot more effective at attacking a fortified position, even if the defenders have equivalent weaponry. This is for a number of reasons. Cannon are more accurate and do more damage to walls than more primitive siege weapons. Defenders on the walls cannot see waves of bullets approaching like they could see arrows - if it was bows vs. bows at the Alamo, the defenders could have been exposed on the walls and only have to worry about relatively close enemies being able to hit them, and usually be able to duck behind cover if they saw an attack coming. They could have arced arrows into the enemy formations without exposing themselves to return fire because bullets have a lot flatter trajectory than arrows. The defenders would have a more significant range advantage from being in an elevated position.

In pre-gunpowder warfare, the siege of the Alamo would have dragged on MUCH longer, even if both sides were evenly matched as far as weaponry and training.

[Hauptman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Would I have a double-layer defense though?

Suppose I have a city with 50% culture bonus in defense and walls. When somebody brings in some seige units to knock one of them down, will the other bonus take over?

No because siege effects them both simultaniosly.

However it is possible that wall % comes down slower than culture %. I have noticed sometimes my cats may only nock 3 or 5% off each attack as apposed to 10% other times...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Handel
According to the civilopedia the armor and the cavalry ARE NOT gunpowder. So it is questionable if they ignore the walss/castles or not.

AFAIK it says (or at least means), that units with tech prerequisites that come after gunpowder ignore walls/castles.

So it applies to everything from musketmen onwards.

[Bill3000]

The way city walls were built pre-gunpowder (thin, but high walls) became obsolete come gunpowder, because it could be easily breached by cannons. Thus, for all intents and purposes, city walls became obsolete; it was not until they had been made to account for gunpowder (thicker walls) before they could become useful again.

I would probably suggest something like have a second form of walls that has a lesser defense bonus, or something to that extent, that gunpowder units can't ignore, but even that isn't really necessary..

[Handel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I don't see why gunpowder units ignore fortifications.

I think seige weapons should be given greater seige power. Which prompts the idea of a separate attack strength and a seige strength.

You didn't really use siege weapons, right? Actually they are VASTLY overpowered. They are not needed to win the combat - they are expendable, but the colateral damage is what counts. Bring 4 siege weapons along with your troops and the most defended city will fall without any other losses. Even some of the siege weapons will survive because of the withdrawal chance.

[Handel]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru


Most famous walled cities were very small by later standards...I believe Jericho was something like 30,000 people.

Not always - Babylon walls enclosed approx. 200 square miles and there lived up to 2,000,000 peoples. About 0 AD in Rome lived above 1,000,000 peoples.

[Silver14]

Originally posted by Hauptman


No because siege effects them both simultaniosly.

However it is possible that wall % comes down slower than culture %. I have noticed sometimes my cats may only nock 3 or 5% off each attack as apposed to 10% other times...

Actually from a game I had last night I think wall % comes down faster then cultural when being bombarded. I was finishing off the Indians, my catapult(s) seemed to do about 5% on his cities with high culture. I had bypassed his smaller cities with low culture to go for his core cities - on the way back around with my stack he had built walls in those cities which had low culture and by that time I was down to one catapult left but it was doing 15% per bombard on the walled ones compared to 5 to the last city he had with high cultural defense.

[Bill3000]

Seige weapons' bombard take down a percentage of the bonus - so 20% of 50 if the cultural/wall bonus is 50%, for example. With the same amount and same quality of seige weapons, a city with 100% cultural bonus will dwindle down to 0% in the same amount of time it takes for a 20% cultural bonus, or 50% wall bonus.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
No - both sides had gunpowder weapons, and the siege ended relatively quickly.

I don't think so. WWI is what happens when you have gunpowder units on both sides.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
If it was just that gunpowder weapons were stronger, all else being equal, then 250 soldiers with gunpowder weapons would hold out against 1600 soldiers with gunpowder weapons as long as 250 pre-gunpowder soldiers against 1600 soldiers with pre-gunpowder weapons.

You're talking about gunpowder units against warriors if you're talking about the colonial period. AFAIK, even the Bristish Red Coats lost to the Zulus at least once. So warriors could win, even without fortifications.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
But that's not the case. When your attackers have gunpowder weapons they are going to be a lot more effective at attacking a fortified position, even if the defenders have equivalent weaponry. This is for a number of reasons. Cannon are more accurate and do more damage to walls than more primitive siege weapons.

Note that cannon is a separate unit in Civ 4. Gunpowder units in the game do not include indirect fire weapons as an organic part as far as I can tell.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Defenders on the walls cannot see waves of bullets approaching like they could see arrows

Try dodging an arrow. It's a bit easier than dodging a bullet but then there is also a hailstorm of it on the battlefield. Probably even more than bullets simply because there are more bowman.

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
In pre-gunpowder warfare, the siege of the Alamo would have dragged on MUCH longer, even if both sides were evenly matched as far as weaponry and training.

I don't think you can make such an assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Handel
You didn't really use siege weapons, right? Actually they are VASTLY overpowered. They are not needed to win the combat - they are expendable, but the colateral damage is what counts. Bring 4 siege weapons along with your troops and the most defended city will fall without any other losses. Even some of the siege weapons will survive because of the withdrawal chance.

You misunderstand me.

The strength of seige weapons are too high in Civ 4, because that is essentially melee strength. Siege weapons are indirect fire weapons that can't defend against direct attacks. That's why there are abnormalities.

I was saying that there should be a direct and indirect strength (at least) to rectify this situation.