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

[causative]

@chrstgtr Well, it depends on what makes more sense for gameplay. If Roman siege walls are intended to be built in enemy territory, then those walls shouldn't decay when they are built there. But normal walls could decay.

Building walls and trenches in enemy territory was a major aspect of siege - protecting your troops from the archers in the enemy fortress, while allowing your troops to get closer to the fortress. Actually I'd also like for walls to block low-arcing ranged attacks, depending on the height of the wall.

[chrstgtr]

11 minutes ago, causative said:

@chrstgtr Well, it depends on what makes more sense for gameplay. If Roman siege walls are intended to be built in enemy territory, then those walls shouldn't decay when they are built there. But normal walls could decay.

 

Sure. Siege walls can be in a category of their own. But that wasn't what you were just saying. 

[Lion.Kanzen]

There is the example of the siege of Alesia.

 

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

But that wasn't what you were just saying. 

I think that was actually brought up by @wowgetoffyourcellphone. (to change all walls).

Yeah I think it would be fine to grant siege walls the exception to territory decay. After all, they already have the exception of being built in enemy territory.

[chrstgtr]

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

I think that was actually brought up by @wowgetoffyourcellphone. (to change all walls).

 

Sure. But it was also clear that that was what everyone was talking about except for possibly causative. 

2 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Yeah I think it would be fine to grant siege walls the exception to territory decay. After all, they already have the exception of being built in enemy territory.

I would also be fine with siege walls decaying, to be honest. They can be build in enemy terrority but so can camps. Those decay. Force players to garrision them like they do with camps. I don't like it when annoying things are built in my city and there is no reason why an absent player should continue to control it. At a min, it should be gaia and just something in your base

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by chrstgtr

[Lion.Kanzen]

Absent means defeated, that is different.

In that case defeat would subcribe to passing to Gaia and not being able to shoot.

 

The only thing that all this means is that the game lacks mechanics.

 

There should be units that take The Wall that are not necessarily siege machines like the siege tower.

 

Units shouldering stairs and then capturing the wall in a slow manner could work aesthetically and functionally.

I imagine them with Rome total war 1, but without the mechanics that the units  climb on the wall.

 

Reference ladder team.

https://raf.heavengames.com/raf/gameinfo/units/misc/

 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Lion.Kanzen

[real_tabasco_sauce]

45 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Those decay. Force players to garrision them like they do with camps. I don't like it when annoying things are built in my city and there is no reason why an absent player should continue to control it. At a min, it should be gaia and just something in your base

Unfortunately, I failed to double the siege wall garrison space like I did with all the other walls. Some people will probably not like that inconsistency, and it means it will remain a chore to keep the walls from being captured.

Fortunately the siege walls are fairly easy to destroy if I remember correctly.

[causative]

On 12/05/2023 at 1:20 PM, Player of 0AD said:

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

 

18 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Everything you say is irrelevant--garrisoned walls already don't decay/get captured.

 

13 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

Force players to garrision them like they do with camps.

12 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Unfortunately, I failed to double the siege wall garrison space like I did with all the other walls. Some people will probably not like that inconsistency, and it means it will remain a chore to keep the walls from being captured.

Fortunately the siege walls are fairly easy to destroy if I remember correctly.

Let's get one thing straight. In the current state of the game (a26 and svn), you cannot garrison walls. I mentioned this in the OP. The only thing you can garrison is stone wall turrets, which still leaves the wall to decay, and not even the turrets can be garrisoned for siege walls.

Edited May 13, 2023 by causative

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, causative said:

Let's get one thing straight. In the current state of the game (a26 and svn), you cannot garrison walls. I mentioned this in the OP. The only thing you can garrison is stone wall turrets, which still leaves the wall to decay, and not even the turrets can be garrisoned for siege walls.

Wow, I actually never realized this. Garrisoning turret points does not affect territory decay. That seems like a problem to me.

[Lion.Kanzen]

4 minutes ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Wow, I actually never realized this. Garrisoning turret points does not affect territory decay. That seems like a problem to me.

This is why the mechanics are incomplete and malfunctioning.

 

The defender is not taken into account and this is something I noticed when they said they lost troops attacking.

 

It is logical that you lose troops when attacking in a siege. That's how it was in real life.

 

 

You could calculate the capture with the size of the wall connected that would generate a total percentage.

[Stan`]

It's possible that an actual bug was introduced with all the changes to walls.

[LetswaveaBook]

3 minutes ago, Stan` said:

It's possible that an actual bug was introduced with all the changes to walls.

I don't want to go off topic, but there might be another 'bug' with walls/turrets.

They increase the range of a garrisoned unit, but not their search radius. That means stationed infantry won't automatically use it to full effect.

[real_tabasco_sauce]

1 hour ago, LetswaveaBook said:

They increase the range of a garrisoned unit, but not their search radius. That means stationed infantry won't automatically use it to full effect.

range query range or aggro range?

[chrstgtr]

4 hours ago, real_tabasco_sauce said:

Wow, I actually never realized this. Garrisoning turret points does not affect territory decay. That seems like a problem to me.

Agree. Didn't realize that either. But seems to be an easy, logical thing to fix

[causative]

Also, garrisoned wall turrets do not shoot arrows and do not have any LOS.

Permitting siege walls to be garrisoned, and then relying on that to prevent territory decay, sucks for several reasons.

• Once they convert to Gaia or the enemy, you can't recapture them. You have to continuously occupy them or lose ownership over them forever. That's just... weird.
• New players won't be aware that they need to immediately garrison their siege walls after building them, so their first reaction is still going to be confusion that their new building is now the enemy's.
• Under current settings, the garrison can't shoot or see. That's not very nice. Better not to have any garrison than to have one that's locked in the coal cellar.
• It makes siege walls harder to make use of, as it costs you some soldiers. Who actually uses siege walls anyway? Siege walls need a buff to make them worth using.

Better to instead continue to not permit garrison, and just disable territory decay entirely for Roman siege walls.

Edited May 14, 2023 by causative

[Atrik]

5 hours ago, causative said:

Better to instead continue to not permit garrison, and just disable territory decay entirely for Roman siege walls.

Romans can build walls inside your base, and since you can't captured them, you need to ram it all, even if it isn't defended by any garrison then?
As romans you could build walls anywhere and keep control over gates until they're ramed down?
How OP would that be? I'll say this looks annoying but...

[causative]

4 hours ago, Atrik said:

Romans can build walls inside your base, and since you can't captured them, you need to ram it all, even if it isn't defended by any garrison then?
As romans you could build walls anywhere and keep control over gates until they're ramed down?
How OP would that be? I'll say this looks annoying but...

How would being able to lock or unlock a gate (without being able to see it) be OP? Siege walls are an age 3 building so you can expect players will have rams by then.

The main use I can think of for building siege walls in enemy territory would be to build little squares to protect catapults and bolt shooters against melee cavalry raids. If you're thinking of "nuisance walls" that prevent the enemy from walking around his base, you kind of have to already defeat his army before you could build those. More of a troll strategy than a serious one, since if you've defeated his army you could instead just ram his cc.

[Grautvornix]

Well, if I may, I believe that, classically, a wall protected people on the other side from attacks,

- except from high flying arrows (but probably with much less range)

- and except from catapult projectiles.

Not sure if we have in 0aD a reduced range aura for arrows and a block against javelins. This appears to be preferable for for all walls and to some extend also to palisades.

A wall in enemy territory thus would make sense in order to build one's own protected "invader's base"-  if you can defend the building works long enough (which might be challenging already). Using the builders crew to man the wall thus preventing it from decaying and defending it at the same time might then be indeed a good idea. Possibly this would apply mostly to really large maps where you are able to establish a base in an unsurveyed corner of the enemy territory.

Just my twocents.

 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/27978