Walls?

[MattH]

I've played for a couple days, and it just struck me. Something's missing! Where are the walls?

In AoE, they were awful- you could build them 6 or 7 layers thick and seal off your empire. I was hoping that they would be implemented better here. Is there any explanation as to why there are none?

[Poogas]

I never really thought of it much befor know, but RoN is going for a some what Historical edge, and to be honest New York really isn't surrounded by walls, so if they were, I would only see it feisible to implament them only during the ancient-classic and possibly the classic.

[MattH]

That's why there is no american civ
In the early ages, walls were quite common. Maybe it could be some building that snakes a wall just around a town. Individual sections would have HP that goes down when you research cannons. I would expand/move if a building is places on it.

Or, citizens could build walls a la AoK.

[TheRookiee]

Well for one, walls are unrealistic. China was the only country to ever use walls, and those walls were not even to keep people out of the country, but as I've heard, they are to slow down barbarians from escaping with their loot.

RON has attrition instead of walls. Attrition is quite realistic. Attrition AND walls would make the game far too costly to do any real attacking. Maneuvering through a maze of walls under attrition would be no fun and too hard.

Furthermore, walls were only really useful to surround cities in the early ages, and if you'll notice, your cities do have walls as they advance through ages such as the middle ages. Countries did not have walls surrounding farmlands or borders, just the cities themselves.

I hope this answers your question as it has been asked many many times before you.... Ohyea.. you coulda just done a quick search for "walls" and gotten a quick answer.

[shirleyrocks]

The only way I could see walls realistically fitting into this game is if maybe there were a new building, say a stone quarry that you could only build on rocky patches. Once this quarry was built within a city limits, the hit points of that city would increase to reflect the existence of city walls.

[Alexander's Horse]

The cities do look odd without walls.

[TheRookiee]

The cities are made with the buildings backs faced toward the outside with the interior being the heart of the city... This is realistic for defensive purposes...

Oh yea; look at the castle that you build in the medieval age.... It is surrounded by a wall... Maybe you missed that. There are walls in the game, but they are built in to the buildings themselves.

[Carch]

Walls don't make sense given the geographic scale of the game. Hit points do change as you add buildings to your city, and "large" cities can take even more punishment. The stuff you're looking for is there, but abstracted.

So ... if you ask me, RoN did do walls better than AoE

[MattH]

I was kind of hoping for something that would hold the enemy for a while. Of course, it would have to be garrisoned by a unit, otherwise it would be useless. One can just blow past entrenchments...

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Carch
So ... if you ask me, RoN did do walls better than AoE

[STING]

I think walls should be in the game, with the limitation that they can only be built within a city radius.

Also the walls would then get obsolete after the Gunpowder age, so they are powerful in the earlier ages and prove quite useless in the later ages. (like in Civilization)

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by STING
I think walls should be in the game, with the limitation that they can only be built within a city radius.

Also the walls would then get obsolete after the Gunpowder age, so they are powerful in the earlier ages and prove quite useless in the later ages. (like in Civilization)

I like this compromise. IMHO Walls would be an asset to the game as long as they are tightly controlled.

[yin26]

It might be fun to have a wall graphic just overlay your border line. This wouldn't be much more than a graphical addition, but you might add in the code something that slows troop movement as it tries to cross the walls (you don't attack the walls ... they just fade as you walk up to them, but they slow you down).

Tech, of course, could be added to make your walls stronger.

So:

* Walls would be automatically built at your borders on top of your border marker.
* Walls would *not* need to be attacked. Instead, they slow troops trying to pass by them -- and no art time is wasted showing crumbling walls since they just 'fade' as the troops come on top of them.

[One_Dead_Villy]

hmmm but that may look a bit wierd...if they just fade across. if u do just want to slow people down, i would at least want to see people scaling the wall. else i'd go for the conventional , wall destruction method

[yin26]

Well, I'll tip my cards: I hate walls! Too much micro, etc. Also, AoE had CPU problems with walls, and units would sometimes slip right through a 'crack' in the wall anyway -- which is much worse, IMO, than having no walls in the first place.

Sure, if they could do the graphic work of these auto-walls and have them auto-rebuild (perhaps with any change in your borders), then it would be fun to have to destroy/climb walls. But for the love of God, please don't make us build them ourselves!

Oh, and if the walls draw too much CPU power, forget this all together. This is why I suggested the border as a slow-down point ... but you've got attrition in already, so the only good argument for walls is an aesthetic one, IMO.