What's the point of siege walls converting to enemy?

[causative]

Roman siege walls say they can be built in own, neutral, or enemy territory.

If you build them in neutral territory they will convert to Gaia within 25 seconds. This may be okay but it does mean you don't control the gates.

If you build them in enemy territory they will convert to the enemy within 25 seconds. The enemy can then just delete them.

You can't capture them back and you can't garrison them to stop them from converting.

What's the point?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Yes, this should change IMHO and I think there would be broad support for changing it.

[hyperion]

18 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Yes, this should change IMHO and I think there would be broad support for changing it.

Similar palisades and outpost with neutral territory as a hotfix for A17 ...

 

PS: A17 isn't a typo

[real_tabasco_sauce]

How would this be fixed? Just make them not decay?

[Grautvornix]

Can't this wall/outpots just remain with the original owner who built it (unless conquered by an adversary)?

Or ist that by principle only possible if manned permanently? (missing terrain aura or the like)

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

1 hour ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

How would this be fixed? Just make them not decay?

Pretty much. They should just not have the decay element enabled.

[LetswaveaBook]

23 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

How would this be fixed? Just make them not decay?

In A24, outpost also decayed. In A25 this was changed. You could look at how outpost are in the game file.

[sternstaub]

19 hours ago, LetswaveaBook said:

In A24, outpost also decayed. In A25 this was changed. You could look at how outpost are in the game file.

yes, but other than the roman siege wall the outpost cannot be placed in enemy territory and will decay to the enemy if he gains control of the territory (as of A26)

[LetswaveaBook]

On 09/05/2023 at 12:39 PM, sternstaub said:

yes, but other than the roman siege wall the outpost cannot be placed in enemy territory and will decay to the enemy if he gains control of the territory (as of A26)

The outpost template has an element to define that it decays in only enemy territory. Removing "enemy" should probably fix it. Or maybe you could disable the TerritoryDecay element completely

 

Now the big question about your claim: Is there a difference below the surface?

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Or just disable <Capturable> in all walls. 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

I feel like that would be an unnecessarily blunt solution. 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

10 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I feel like that would be an unnecessarily blunt solution. 

Why are walls even capturable to begin with?

[Stan`]

5 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Why are walls even capturable to begin with?

IIRC Siege towers and ladders were planned.

[Lion.Kanzen]

2 hours ago, Stan&#x60; said:

IIRC Siege towers and ladders were planned.

And what happened to that?

[real_tabasco_sauce]

if "buildings" are allowed a capture attack, siege towers could be the only unit capable of capturing walls. Let the garrisoned units modify the capture attack (by quantity), then units from the siege tower could garrison the wall once it is captured.

Also, if I CC drop an enemy base, it would be good for their walls to become mine.

[Stan`]

9 hours ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

And what happened to that?

Same thing that happened with anything else, nobody wanted to work on it or had the time to do so, so nobody did.

[chrstgtr]

8 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Also, if I CC drop an enemy base, it would be good for their walls to become mine.

This. Before the decay rate of walls was unified with other buildings, iber used to be annoying even after killing it because you would get "trapped" in walls of a city you already destroyed/captured. I lost so many games because walls and pathfinding of a defeated iber player made be useless for 2 minutes while I moved to the next player and the other side of my team died. 

[Player of 0AD]

If I'm not mistaken they can be garrisoned by ranged infantry, but this is still no great solution

[AIEND]

13 小时前，斯坦&#x60; 说：

同样的事情发生在其他任何事情上，没有人愿意或没有时间去做，所以没有人去做。

It is better to change the city wall to a state that cannot be captured first, and not let the existing game content wait for those things that still exist in the imagination.

[Lion.Kanzen]

I agree with @AIEND , if there is no one who wants to implement it better to leave the walls in the previous mechanics, without capturing.

[chrstgtr]

There is literally no reason why walls should not be capturable. It makes no sense for empty walls that are surrounded by enemy territory to be controlled by a player that has no nearby units, building, or territory. Do you really think think fleeing armies locked a special door that can only be opened with one key and then left the Nest doorbell video on so they could view all that pass by? That is such an absurdly stupid thing to believe from a historical, practical, or gameplay point of view

[Lion.Kanzen]

It should be captured otherwise it is a sloppy mechanic.

 

Maybe if you disconnect most of the territorial influence.

 

Otherwise it's just breach the wall and destroy the CC.

 

Then all the investment in the wall is not justified.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Read Siege of Jerusalem. The Romans in order to capture Jerusalem had to destroy wall after wall after line of houses and dwellings.

 

In the end they tried to make an assault on the Antonia Fortress and the temple of Jerusalem.

 

Yes, that's why there are war battering rams to smash wall after wall.

 

I am always very careful to destroy all the defenses before going in to capture something.

 

https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0037-0103,_Flavius_Josephus,_De_Bello_Judaico,_EN.pdf

 

Edited May 12, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[causative]

@chrstgtr If you're talking from a historical point of view, the point of a wall is that it takes siege equipment (such as a ladder or siege tower or giant earthen ramp) to capture, or siege equipment to destroy (rams, which only work if the wall is not too thick, or for thicker walls, digging under the wall to collapse it.) Soldiers without siege equipment couldn't capture walls unless the walls were unmanned. Walls were really darn good in the ancient world so that often the most practical way to assault a walled city was to starve them out.

[chrstgtr]

41 minutes ago, causative said:

@chrstgtr If you're talking from a historical point of view, the point of a wall is that it takes siege equipment (such as a ladder or siege tower or giant earthen ramp) to capture, or siege equipment to destroy (rams, which only work if the wall is not too thick, or for thicker walls, digging under the wall to collapse it.) Soldiers without siege equipment couldn't capture walls unless the walls were unmanned. Walls were really darn good in the ancient world so that often the most practical way to assault a walled city was to starve them out.

Everything you say is irrelevant--garrisoned walls already don't decay/get captured. Walls only get captured when they are entirely in enemy territory and unmanned. Men can't even exercise a capture mechanic on walls.

If you think unmanned walls in enemy territory shouldn't be captured then you should tell all the Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Slavs, Brits, etc. that they don't actually have control of the old Roman walls in their countries because the Romans (who no longer exist) still control them.