Design Iberian circuit wall

[Mythos_Ruler]

After discussion on IRC, we've come to the conclusion that the Iberian circuit wall is slightly overpowered. We believe that we should still make the Iberian player raidable, just make it difficult (instead of impossible as it is now). The solution we came up with was to remove the free gates and keep the open gaps in the wall.

Secondly, we could remove auto-arrows from Wall Towers until a tech is researched in the Town Phase (a revamped "Night's Watch" tech).

These two things combined could be enough of a nerf that we don't have to remove the circuit wall entirely, which would be a shame.

[MishFTW]

Yeah they were too overpowered. Now I will miss selecting them for that bonus

[tribalbeat]

Can't you just make them start with wooden walls?

[wraitii]

Agreed on them being overpowered. I also agree that perhaps wooden palisades would make more sense, in which case they could be closed.

(also, it's still noteworthy that aegis currently disbands the walls, keeping only towers)

[Pureon]

Most multiplayer gamers hate starting as Iberians because their units are underpowered. I understand raiding should be possible against them, and don't see anything wrong with removing their gates, however nerfing one of the more under-powered civs in this way means boosting them elsewhere. Can you suggest where this would be? Their siege cavalry unit could definitely use a boost imo.

Secondly, we could remove auto-arrows from Wall Towers until a tech is researched in the Town Phase (a revamped "Night's Watch" tech).

Yeah good idea

[Yves]

Raiding is still possible even with the towers and the gates because you need resources from outside of the walls soon.

If you can keep the Iberian player inside his castle you are going to win the game.

What's the point of walls with gaps and no towers?

Maybe we could remove the towers so that the workers close to the wall can't easily be protected from attacks without running far away from the resources, but I think we shouldn't remove the gates.

[Spahbod]

Secondly, we could remove auto-arrows from Wall Towers until a tech is researched in the Town Phase (a revamped "Night's Watch" tech).

I think we should remove the auto arrows from the wall towers, reduce their damage/attack-speed, and make them shoot when they are garrisoned.

[Pedro Falcão]

I agree with Yves.

[lilstewie]

So annoying n op.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I think we should remove the auto arrows from the wall towers, reduce their damage/attack-speed, and make them shoot when they are garrisoned.

I want city walls to be powerful and defensible.

Raiding is still possible even with the towers and the gates because you need resources from outside of the walls soon.

If you can keep the Iberian player inside his castle you are going to win the game.

What's the point of walls with gaps and no towers?

Maybe we could remove the towers so that the workers close to the wall can't easily be protected from attacks without running far away from the resources, but I think we shouldn't remove the gates.

I would not want to remove the towers. However, your other arguments are persuasive. I may have been swayed too much by TheMista who would prefer that his playing style (raid raid raid) work on all enemies.

[Spahbod]

I want city walls to be powerful and defensible.

They are quite powerful right now, and in the way I suggested, you can still have the towers shoot. Just you have to garrison someone into them for that.

[Mythos_Ruler]

They are quite powerful right now, and in the way I suggested, you can still have the towers shoot. Just you have to garrison someone into them for that.

Too much micro. You build a wall with towers, you want the towers to shoot.

[Spahbod]

Too much micro. You build a wall with towers, you want the towers to shoot.

But we have a lot of towers, and a lot of towers will create a hell for your army. Besides, we are going to have a town bell or something. That would help with micromanagement.

[feneur]

I'd say let's remove the default ability for wall towers to auto-shoot (but still keep it for CCs, Outposts and Fortresses, and always allow garrisoned units to add shooting power to a tower) and then add a tech to enable auto-shooting for wall towers.

[TheMista]

Can someone point out why iberians are underpowered?

[FeXoR]

Towers that don't shoot by default (or at least after an upgrade) are pretty useless. IMO in the and watchtowers are better than walls including wall towers anyway (At least for me). AFAIK defense towers have a larger range then wall towers in general.

I like the Iberian walls. IMO another civilization should get palisades as civ bonus.

However, I can't see the Iberians are underpowered beyond not having ranged food/wood citizen soldiers. They are overpowered IMO (cheap, fast, self sustaining by gathering mass wood, can be produced right away).

Tell me if a decision is reached so I can change the random maps starting entity placement function appropriate.

Edited January 22, 2013 by FeXoR

[alpha123]

Most multiplayer gamers hate starting as Iberians because their units are underpowered.

Their units are not nearly as underpowered as most people believe. Slingers are the best unit in the game due to their 2x vs all infantry bonus combined with the quick fire rate. Also, their champion cavalry is excellent (especially when you have 50 of them... quantumstate...) and their tower, combined with the Crenellations upgrade, is a killing machine.

I understand raiding should be possible against them, and don't see anything wrong with removing their gates, however nerfing one of the more under-powered civs in this way means boosting them elsewhere. Can you suggest where this would be? Their siege cavalry unit could definitely use a boost imo.

I'd they're no longer one of the more underpowered civs. If you do need to compensate, perhaps make their civ center stronger (to fit with stronger towers and fortresses). And the siege cavalry definitely don't need a boost. >_< They're already considerably more effective than battering rams.

What's the point of walls with gaps and no towers?

Keep the towers. It's still useful, because it's much easier to defend a few chokepoints than the whole area surrounding your civ center. Also, when garrisoned the towers could still be effective at reducing or preventing raids.

Too much micro. You build a wall with towers, you want the towers to shoot.

Like Spahbod said, a town bell would take care of that. Even until then, it's not much extra micro at all.

The main point of walls is not to shoot, it's to create chokepoints. Use freestanding towers and fortresses to shoot. The wall towers shooting is just a nice bonus, which is why I think it should be unlocked with an upgrade.

Edited January 22, 2013 by alpha123

[Mythos_Ruler]

The wall towers shooting is just a nice bonus, which is why I think it should be unlocked with an upgrade.

That's what I've been saying. Spahbod, as far as I understand, is saying wall towers shouldn't be able to auto-shoot at all. I would be perfectly okay with not having them auto-shoot until a tech is researched (a revamped "Night's Watch" would work).

But, IMHO, walls aren't just there to create "choke points." They're also usable to defend your entire "base" which is supposed to represent a (fortified) city. A city of the Hellenistic Age, an age where the sophistication of city fortifications grew by leaps and bounds. In fact, I would love to give the Hellenistic, Roman, and Carthaginian wall towers an extra upgrade that has them firing scorpion bolts.

Assaulting a fortified location should be an extremely dangerous, bloody affair.

[Pureon]

Can someone point out why iberians are underpowered?

It's possible this is no longer the case given we've been tweaking balance (house costs, heroes, etc.) the past few weeks.

If wall towers no longer have ranged attack by default, I'd prefer to keep the gates on Iberian starting walls based on the comments above. We could make the Iberian stone walls 30-40% weaker at start and allow them to tech to 100% hp when in city phase - so they get their walls at start but they aren't such a barrier to other players without siege capabilities pre-city phase.

[alpha123]

In fact, I would love to give the Hellenistic, Roman, and Carthaginian wall towers an extra upgrade that has them firing scorpion bolts.

Now there's an interesting idea. I'd be okay with that. Carthaginian walls might be a little overpowered right now though. OTOH, nobody really uses walls much in multiplayer.

Assaulting a fortified location should be extremely dangerous. The game isn't AOEO or AOM or AOE3.

That's also true. A good mix of offense and defense is essential for a good RTS. This game currently is primarily offensive.

We could make the Iberian stone walls 30-40% weaker at start and allow them to tech to 100% hp when in city phase - so they get their walls at start but they aren't such a barrier to other players without siege capabilities pre-city phase.

Non-siege units can't even attack walls, so their health doesn't make a difference. They're still impossible to take down pre-city phase.

Edited January 22, 2013 by alpha123

[sanderd17]

OTOH, nobody really uses walls much in multiplayer.

I guess one of the issues is that walls aren't closed on impassable terrain. When you build walls against a cliff, people can still pass. You can only use it as a bottleneck.

[Mythos_Ruler]

I guess one of the issues is that walls aren't closed on impassable terrain. When you build walls against a cliff, people can still pass. You can only use it as a bottleneck.

You can actually close the end up against a cliff, it's just very delicate and takes a bit of time (and not guaranteed to work). Ideally it should "snap" to the cliff or something.

[fabio]

You can actually close the end up against a cliff, it's just very delicate and takes a bit of time (and not guaranteed to work). Ideally it should "snap" to the cliff or something.

When building a wall near a cliff in Settlers 6 a couple of orthogonal smaller walls appear connecting the wall tower to the cliff. This is just a visual indicator meaning the terrain is impassable.

Edited January 23, 2013 by fabio

[idanwin]

Ideally it should "snap" to the cliff or something.

Something like this:

Some kind of water snapping should also be possible.

I agree with making the Wall-towers-can-shoot an upgrade (not with that name of course xD) And having towers shoot scorpion bolts would be sweet. Will that change the visual of the towers as well? (Will the scorpion be visible?)

[sanderd17]

You can actually close the end up against a cliff, it's just very delicate and takes a bit of time (and not guaranteed to work). Ideally it should "snap" to the cliff or something.

Well, the problem is that the tower turns. So you can set the first tower where it's allowed, but the moment you start appending a wall, the tower turns and often, a corner hits the impassable terrain, and your have to start repositioning your first tower.

I would love to see snapping happening.

Now, what's really not possible, that's building walls against shorelines. I think this should also be possible. Not sure though. I think as far as you can reach to build a wall, you should be able to build one.