Walls, WTF?

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by dolf
They should have made some kind of defence structure that would have been used in the later part of the game.

there were enough stuctures made by men after gunpowder

Yeah, I was talking a little above about that whole era of fortification started by Louis XIV's Marshal Vauban. That was all after gunpowder, but the forts and city fortifications were effective until after rifled cannon were introduced in the 19th century.

Then of course, there was that other French masterpiece, the Maginot Line!

(Well, there were some fancy ones built by France and Germany before World War I too, like in Metz and Verdun, all somewhat gunpowder resistant. The U.S. built some nice border fortifications along the Eastern Seaboard between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, including a nice one that still survives as a museum near Savannah, Georgia. The Japanese built some pretty things, which were still functional fortresses, during the Shogun period, which was at the dawn of the gunpowder age over there. The Siegfried Line was the WWII German counterpart to the Maginot Line and held up American troops in some places during 1944-45. NORAD headquarters in Colorado can withstand a low-level nuclear attack. Fortification definitely didn't end with gunpowder.)

[Quillan]

True, but those are represented in game by the Bunker and Bomb Shelter improvements. The entire nature of fortification changed with the development of cannons. The usual large stone structure just can't stand up to repeated pounding of cannon rounds. The later fortifications were either large earth constructions that were intended to deflect or absorb projectiles while making it VERY dangerous to approach close enough to do anything to the fortifications, or the final of a series of different things whose purpose is to slow down attackers allowing them to be killed while closing. NORAD could withstand a nuclear attack, and about the only possible method of attacking it is with a nuclear missile. There's way too much defense in depth around it to try artillery, armor or infantry against it.

[Generaldoktor]

Okay, I forgot about bomb shelter/bunkers, (hardly ever build them either.) But I agree with dolf that there should be a late period fortification to reflect improvements in the 17th-20th centuries, like the others I cited (Vauban's, Civil War era, WWI-WWII.) The fact that these worked differently than the medieval castle type doesn't mean they shouldn't be represented. "Culture defense," I continue to find an absurd concept that probably doesn't exist in the real world.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
"Culture defense," I continue to find an absurd concept that probably doesn't exist in the real world.

(shrug) I think it's basically there to show the increased losses you'll take if you try to invade a city full of loyal, patriotic people. (Which is kind of what "culture" represents, I think; if you're American, and have a lot of culture in New York, then the people in and around New York really feel strongly about being loyal Americans). Urban gurrillia warfare has always been very painful for invading armies, making defenders much more effective then attackers, and it still is.

[Indon]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


Yeah, I was talking a little above about that whole era of fortification started by Louis XIV's Marshal Vauban. That was all after gunpowder, but the forts and city fortifications were effective until after rifled cannon were introduced in the 19th century.

Then of course, there was that other French masterpiece, the Maginot Line!

(Well, there were some fancy ones built by France and Germany before World War I too, like in Metz and Verdun, all somewhat gunpowder resistant. The U.S. built some nice border fortifications along the Eastern Seaboard between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, including a nice one that still survives as a museum near Savannah, Georgia. The Japanese built some pretty things, which were still functional fortresses, during the Shogun period, which was at the dawn of the gunpowder age over there. The Siegfried Line was the WWII German counterpart to the Maginot Line and held up American troops in some places during 1944-45. NORAD headquarters in Colorado can withstand a low-level nuclear attack. Fortification definitely didn't end with gunpowder.)

Forts still work after gunpowder in Civ 4, right (I don't really build them, so I wouldn't know)? City walls are, well, city-based fortifications. You're talking about fortresses away from urban areas, which would be the equivalent of a fort on a hill on friendly territory in Civ 4.

I can't think of many city-based fortifications after the invention of gunpowder; the British had some in the American Revolutionary War, I think, but after that time frame nothing comes to mind.

[Generaldoktor]

Cities get fortified as a result of being in the path of invasions; I'm wondering if this shouldn't be better reflected in the game then just units digging in. However, the WWI fortified towns, like Metz and Verdun, evidently had integral fortifications on the approaches to town, like medieval cities, except for modern construction, even prior to being involved in the war. Towns like Aachen, Leningrad and Stalingrad, ended up pretty fortified after becoming the source of endless battles in WWII; I believe Aachen's were close to the city, pre-built before the battle and actually considered an essential part of the Siegfried Line; Brest-Litovsk, taken from the Poles and made an integral key to the 1941 Soviet border, had evidently seen some modern upgrades also. There was Port Arthur in Manchuria, fortified by the Russians and tested (successfully, but only after time,) in the early 20th century "Russo-Japanese War." "55 Days in Peking," anyone? Need I bring up the "Green Zone" in Baghdad?

[Indon]

Again, most fortification is still outside town.

The strategy behind walls/castles is to get inside the fortification and hide, making one's last stand there; Sure, your enemy could destroy the surrounding villages and fields (in Civ, the city improvements), but not take the actual city. This is a strategy not really found in the fortification technique you outline there.

That fortification method, rather, has more of a hold-and-give mentality because of the ability of artillery to basically level everything, better expressed by building forts in multiple squares in the city radius and forcing an opponent to fight drafted units to capture villages, fields, and roads.

Also, regarding the "Green Zone": Perimeter security in modern warfare is many, many times more proactive and on-the-field than city walls were. The "Green Zone" is maintained by _troops_, not physical fortifications, and the insurgents aren't even expressable as a unit in Civ terms anyway (More like civil unrest).

To summarize, fortification is now on-the-field, and when in the cities, found not in the city center so much as the city environs, which during the time of walls were as often as not simply abandoned.

-Though, you could make a good point about it phasing out more slowly. Perhaps early gunpowder units should, rather than ignoring that fortification _completely_, simply reduce its' effectiveness.

[Generaldoktor]

Well, as I'm constantly reminded; "Civ is not a wargame," so splitting hairs over this is counter-productive. I think some city hearts were fortified enough to be gunpowder-resistant in modern times, like Brest-Litovsk, or by both sides in WWII's Stalingrad or Kharkov, or the foreign quarter during the Boxer Rebellion, (that's the "55 Days in Peking, btw, great movie too.) Khartoum? (Another great movie, but maybe like "The Alamo," a third great movie; they were just quickly expanding, ad hoc, on archaic "works.")

The battle for Manila in 1944, (the Americans were coming back the other way,) seems to have featured some heavy fortification of the inner city by the Japanese, though the U.S. government seems to be downplaying that now, as they don't like fear over "urban warfare" to limit our options for the next Middle East Adventure. (Teheran, anyone?) I still think Aachen was a fortified town in 1944 too, but I won't be touring Europe this year, so I'll have to defer saying absolutely.

Were Lee's fortifications at Petersburg, (Virginia) in 1864 in the town, or out? Oh, I don't know, I wasn't there, though I hear there's a battlefield site you can tour out there, so I may be able to find out, on that one. I can tell you that I'm not planning any "fact-finding" missions either though to Baghdad, but from MSNBC's description of the "Green Zone" last winter, it appears there's an awful lot of infrastructure that has been built in the government district, to try to keep it "green." (Might have been a picked-up Washington "Post" article; of course they are not big fans of our current "war." Been told elsewhere though that the "civil unrest" can be pretty numerous and deadly.)

Either way, I have, in the past, considered this idea of getting some real use out of the limited "fortification" square improvement in Civ, by surrounding a city with them as Indon suggests. Never seem to have enough workers or time, in a siege situation to do that. Has anybody?

[Indon]

I'd put some thought into how to make it really useful, and a bit more realistic:

1.Forts no longer override forest or jungle. A fort in the forest is _more_ difficult to attack than a fort on the open plain, and should stay that way.

2.Infantry should have availible a promotion (probably called "Engineer") that would allow them to construct forts, and only forts, as if they were workers. This includes speeding the time for construction if more than one unit works on it at once.

Minimal changes, but they 1.)Give infantry a more mobile role in the late wargame, 2.)Add a bit of realism concerning military engineering, and 3.)make forts useful.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Indon
1.Forts no longer override forest or jungle. A fort in the forest is _more_ difficult to attack than a fort on the open plain, and should stay that way.

Well, it depends on the time periods; in early times, the forest immidealty around a castle or fort was always cleared so the archers on the walls of the castle could get a clear shot at anyone coming close.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why siege weapons will knock cultural defenses down, but not damage city walls. Isn't that part of the point of siege weapons (catapults, rams, drills, mining)?

I like the idea of walls and forts giving you a ZOC around your city. Or perhaps a 10% attack (not defense) bonus to archery units in the city or fort (traditionally, enemy units approaching a walled city/fort had to do so over open ground, and were thus vulnerable).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why siege weapons will knock cultural defenses down, but not damage city walls. Isn't that part of the point of siege weapons (catapults, rams, drills, mining)?

Seige weapons also damage walls at the same rate.

Though it doesn't make sense to me. They should only damage physical walls, not "cultural defense."

That makes taking barb cities harder for me, though...

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I like the idea of walls and forts giving you a ZOC around your city.

Why, thank you!

[Indon]

Originally posted by Yosho


Well, it depends on the time periods; in early times, the forest immidealty around a castle or fort was always cleared so the archers on the walls of the castle could get a clear shot at anyone coming close.

Modern times, too, come to think of it. Hmm...

Well, I still like my engineer suggestion.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I'm somewhat puzzled as to why siege weapons will knock cultural defenses down, but not damage city walls. Isn't that part of the point of siege weapons (catapults, rams, drills, mining)?

"Siege weapons" were also used to toss body parts, poisioned food and many other horrible things into cities in an attempt to break down the resolve (read culture) of the inhabitants

This could possibly be applied to the reduction of cultural defense - possibly.

[fani]

Well...the way i visualise this is....
"Oh look...that nasty catapult destroyed our lovely statues and monuments...the library that contained all those wonderful books that contained our cultural achievements and records of ancient history...our city is now a bunch of rubble...NOW LETS BREAK THIS SIEGE AND GO GET THEIR CITIES"