davidsrsb

The pike was basically a very long and heavy ~5kg spear. This gave it the power to puncture or badly deform any wearable armour. The downside was its weight and slowness. One pike against a sword would be in trouble as the more agile swordsmen could avoid the pike and hack the pikeman. Many pikes together can cover each other and become very hard to dodge. The length of the pike was perfect for bringing down cavalry in front of the line, to be killed by the sidearm sword. So effective that knights would often dismount and fight on foot.

Pike attack is definitely hack, not pierce. They could defeat any armour, including steel plate, which arrows and swords could not. The rate should be low as this is a very unwieldy weapon, but range is far more than a sword or spear.. I like the idea or being able to reach over another soldier. A few rows of pikes was a formidable barrier to cavalry or infantry attack and was only beaten when firearms became common.

Or return to home territory. I am thinking about something like aura from civic centres, military camps and fortresses that keeps home troops fed, otherwise too much micromanagement is needed. Similarly women and traders should not depend on logistics anywhere.

All units would consume food, cavalry more than infantry and elephants far more than either. Chariots would consume a lot too. You would need two new units, a supply cart and some sort of mobile store, the van of classical armies. Having to plan supply drops would make a more interesting game and far more realistic. Huge armies camped away from home would require planning and attacking the enemies supply convoys becomes an option. Your soldiers can also hunt to supply the van, living off the land

Having all units require food resources if more than a certain radius from their civic centre, to be supplied by something like the trader unit, would restrict big elephant army attacks. Fail to supply and the health goes down. This is realistic, historic armies had problems with logistics.

How about stone towers and fortresses becoming stone quarries when knocked out. They can then be mined or rebuilt at the same site with reduced stone requirements

Yes bonus against cavalry, maybe slightly weaker against melee infantry.

I don't understand the historical reason why cavalry are far more effective against towers than infantry. Apart from rams, the traditional attack on towers was bundles of kindling or fire arrows

In real battles in history, the commanders often took advantage of the terrain to suit their strengths and weaknesses. Bogs and swamps should slow down cavalry, rams and heavily armoured infantry a lot. Women and archers could escape from them there. This could make an interesting downside to advancing down the armour technology tree as the weight goes up

For historic accuracy, spear/lance cavalry should have very high pierce damage, but then should switch to sword hack after a hit. The spear would often be lost after killing an opponent

Not very realistic either, a sword cavalry would get skewered by a spear cavalry before he got close

Just unloading the healthiest of the type first would be good enough for me

Catapults were very powerful weapons, very effective against organic units. Their weakness was cost, packing time and vulnerability to hack - they were fragile machines, so they needed a lot of protection

How about two options to destroy a palisade. Attack to destroy it, no wood recovered. Takes time and your troops are exposed while doing it. Second is dismantle, similar to cutting trees and subject to the usual baskets/wheelbarrows carrying limits.

Why not, it makes sense?

It is realistic that rams don't harm people. It is realistic that catapults do harm people, either by very destructive direct hit or by limited splash damage

In A25 the AI still generates high numbers of traders shuttling between two markets, this seems to be the main way it gathers resources

To keep balance better and add a new feature, how about ladders as an addition to rams. These would not have an attack of their own, but allow hack troops to attack defenders on the wall top and capture wall sections?

I disagree about deducting resources, the builders already spend time while moving to site. Build on top yes, that is reality

Palisades should be neutral in ownership, anyone can build, repair or tear down. They are a barrier to all sides while standing

I don't like javelin cavalry being so effective against elephants, historically the elephants smell spooked horses. Pikes and archers/crossbow men should be the most effective, an elephant could not carry effective armour

I like the idea of placing the units on the top. Ranged weapons can have a height advantage. Hacking weapons only can attack a future addition of siege towers. All including women can use vision with height advantage. The tower can give strong armour against hack from ground level and some armour against ranged weapons

I don't see why removing attack stops vision. It makes it absolutely pointless to garrison them. In 0.25, walls have now become a waste of resources I don't agree with removing attack. The balance was wrong, maybe they should not have the unmanned sentry bonus. Maybe only ranged weapon users should be able to fire. Ideally to be realistic, they should provide total protection against hack for occupants, but only limited pierce protection. Walls and turrets should have been more expensive to build, removing a lot of the imbalance. The suggestion of building wall segments without turrets is an ugly consequence. Real world walls without turrets are unstable.

I have a save game where infantry behind the wall lost sight of the attackers as soon as they entered a tower. Lower left side of map, at the shore of the sea. If you make a man leave the tower, all the attackers are revealed savegame-0189.0adsave

My impression is that elephants are far to strong against infantry. They are not tanks and in historical reality very vulnerable to spear and pole weapon men