Battering Rams: Palisades vs Stone Walls

[Philip the Swaggerless]

Palisades are built in smaller segments than stone walls.  When a ram attacks a palisade, it attacks the edge of the palisade, the center of the palisade, and the other edge of the palisade.  Each part of the palisade has 700 health, so an un-upgraded ram, dealing 150 crush damage, will need at least 5 hits to destroy each part of the palisade.  Having destroyed a section, a tiny bottleneck of soldiers can then follow the ram through, but they are especially vulnerable to the defending army since they must squeeze through a small space.  (Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range)

Stone walls are built in larger sections and of course have more health.  But once the main section is destroyed there is a large gap for an army to pass through.

I think palisades are too strong versus siege compared to stone walls and the main issue is that they have smaller sections that each need to be destroyed.  I propose that the length of the middle section of palisade walls be extended to the same length as the stone walls.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Philip the Swaggerless
added palisade length proposal

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

I would like to see palisades gain effectiveness versus cavalry and lose some versus siege. Increasing the gap between posts would mean that it is easier for cavalry to get through once they break one section. 

If siege attacking one piece of wall did exactly the same damage to the adjacent pieces of wall, then larger sections could be opened up by the same attack.

On a side note, it would be very nice if melee cavalry could get a .3x or .5x multiplier versus palisade walls.

[alre]

I am a supporter of palisades having a bonus against cav, as it would differentiate it more from stone walls.

I think another another buff for walls, would be to change the effect on garrisoned troops. if it was equal or similar to that of soldiers garrisoning towers, they would be more viable and interesting IMO.

[Philip the Swaggerless]

19 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

If siege attacking one piece of wall did exactly the same damage to the adjacent pieces of wall, then larger sections could be opened up by the same attack.

On a side note, it would be very nice if melee cavalry could get a .3x or .5x multiplier versus palisade walls.

Both of those ideas seem good to me. Although the only real cav issue is sword cav, I think. 

One benefit of making it so adjacent palisade sections are also damaged by rams (and catapults & elephants, I suggest) is that the palisade cost would not have to be rebalanced as I believe it is based on the number of sections. 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

9 hours ago, alre said:

I think another another buff for walls, would be to change the effect on garrisoned troops. if it was equal or similar to that of soldiers garrisoning towers, they would be more viable and interesting IMO.

I think adding to arrows to walls would be more boring to be honest. The main issue with using walls for troop garrison is that only 8 can fit up there, which is useless for most gameplay situations. If the number of spots could be changed to 20, then I think it would be used much more.

[alre]

5 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I think adding to arrows to walls would be more boring to be honest. The main issue with using walls for troop garrison is that only 8 can fit up there, which is useless for most gameplay situations. If the number of spots could be changed to 20, then I think it would be used much more.

I wasn't suggesting to just add arrows to walls, but to make garrisoned walls functionally similar, if not equivalent to garrisoned towers and forts. how? make the guys on walls not shootable at, and raise their attack time. Just a suggestion, but one that works for sure (similar to what we already have) while your solution may as well not.

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

23 minutes ago, alre said:

I wasn't suggesting to just add arrows to walls, but to make garrisoned walls functionally similar, if not equivalent to garrisoned towers and forts. how? make the guys on walls not shootable at, and raise their attack time. Just a suggestion, but one that works for sure (similar to what we already have) while your solution may as well not.

I feel like that would wind up being simply a more OP version of the wall turret arrows that were removed from a24 to a25. I think the existing mechanic is ok, theres just not enough up there to make a difference in most defensive battles.

[chrstgtr]

10 hours ago, alre said:

think another another buff for walls, would be to change the effect on garrisoned troops. if it was equal or similar to that of soldiers garrisoning towers, they would be more viable and interesting IMO.

Turrets used to be this way. It was taken out because someone for some reason thought it was OP. I disagree and think this was a very lazy solution, but I digress…either way it was rarely used. 

[Gurken Khan]

7 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Turrets used to be this way. It was taken out because someone for some reason thought it was OP.

IIRC it was because iber usually spawn with turrets.

[chrstgtr]

37 minutes ago, Gurken Khan said:

IIRC it was because iber usually spawn with turrets.

That was the purported reason--you could create a thicket of extremely strong towers. I never saw it done, though. Even if it did happen, a much better solution would've been to limit how closely they could be placed next to each other. 

Eliminating features is just a lazy way to 'fix' something that could otherwise be properly adjusted.

[MarcusAureliu#s]

1 hour ago, chrstgtr said:

"Eliminating features is just a lazy way to 'fix' something that could otherwise be properly adjusted."

This needs to be printed on calendars and deep pictures on instagram

[LetswaveaBook]

On 08/09/2022 at 8:02 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

(Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range)

This defealt behaviour is prone to causing issues like these and other undesirable effects. The problem is a large part due to bad behaviour and that is something that needs to be fixed.

[alre]

17 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

That was the purported reason--you could create a thicket of extremely strong towers. I never saw it done, though. Even if it did happen, a much better solution would've been to limit how closely they could be placed next to each other. 

Eliminating features is just a lazy way to 'fix' something that could otherwise be properly adjusted.

well but turrets and towers are two different things.

lazy solutions are better than no solutions anyway, and lazy fixes are still fixes.

[chrstgtr]

3 hours ago, alre said:

well but turrets and towers are two different things.

lazy solutions are better than no solutions anyway, and lazy fixes are still fixes.

They function exactly the same. Both are buildings that take up a small space and shoot arrows. Except one had a spacing requirement, which works. Also, as I have already said, I’ve never seen such a problem. 
 

If you really want to ‘fix’ the whole game then you should eliminate all civs except one, eliminate all units except one, eliminate all buildings except one, eliminate all res except one, and eliminate all techs. That will make the game perfectly balanced. That isn’t a ‘fix.’ It is the thinking that mires progress and eliminates features that you seek in every other thread. 

[Philip the Swaggerless]

To consolidate our discussion about the initial topic

Cavalry vs Palisades

• (Sword) Cavalry should get a 0.3 attack multiplier against palisades.
  • This is a simple template adjustment so it is easy to implement.

Siege units vs Palisades:  Option 1 OR 2

1. Ram, Catapult, War elephants, & Juggernaut ships also damage palisade sections that are directly adjacent to the section they are attacking.
   • Good because it does not give cause for cost rebalancing
   • not sure how to implement.  @wowgetoffyourcellphone @Freagarach, or
2. Make palisade sections longer, comparable to stonewall length. 
   • bad because it requires cost rebalancing
   • ...also not sure how to implement lol

Unit Behavior

• Make non-siege soldiers not attack palisades unless commanded, like other buildings.

[alre]

8 hours ago, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Ram, Catapult, War elephants, & Juggernaut ships also damage palisade sections that are directly adjacent to the section they are attacking.

potentially quite heavy because it could need a range query for every hit dealt to the palisade, maybe two (one for each end of the palisade segment).

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

17 hours ago, alre said:

potentially quite heavy because it could need a range query for every hit dealt to the palisade, maybe two (one for each end of the palisade segment).

Heavy you mean performance-wise? I was thinking it could just do the exact same damage to adjoining wall or post sections, regardless of range or distance. 

[chrstgtr]

19 minutes ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Heavy you mean performance-wise? I was thinking it could just do the exact same damage to adjoining wall or post sections, regardless of range or distance. 

It already existed in the form of splash dmg, which was taken out for other reasons (although I would personally be fine with it being reimplemented)

You could also get almost exactly the same effect for palisades only by making palisades twice as large as they currently are.  
 

Both would be fine with me 

Edited September 12, 2022 by chrstgtr

[alre]

7 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

Heavy you mean performance-wise? I was thinking it could just do the exact same damage to adjoining wall or post sections, regardless of range or distance. 

still needs the queries. potentially optimizable by keeping a table of all palisade segments and neighbours, updated by build ruitines, but that would need further work.

actual performance fall has to be tested to be known.

[LienRag]

On 08/09/2022 at 6:02 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

Having destroyed a section, a tiny bottleneck of soldiers can then follow the ram through, but they are especially vulnerable to the defending army since they must squeeze through a small space. 

That is how they worked historically, and why palissades are interesting tactically, so it should stay how it is.

 

On 08/09/2022 at 6:02 PM, Philip the Swaggerless said:

 (Another trouble for the invader is that soldiers (especially ranged soldiers) get distracted fighting the palisade and do not immediately stop when enemy soldiers come into range)

That is a problem that needs to be fixed.

[Dakara]

No change

No change wall 

No change palisade, we can move easy army if we kill one part of palisade

No change sword cav against wall or palisade

Edited November 8, 2022 by Dakara

[Norse_Harold]

In any case, Philip The Swaggerless has a point that it's not realistic for a ram or elephant to knock down a large section of stone wall.

Check out videos of vehicles ramming brick walls. It usually punches a small hole in the wall, the same size as the object attacking it.

So, more realistic would be: shorten stone wall sections to the same length as palisade wall sections.

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 08/11/2022 at 12:08 PM, Norse_Harold said:

In any case, Philip The Swaggerless has a point that it's not realistic for a ram or elephant to knock down a large section of stone wall.

Check out videos of vehicles ramming brick walls. It usually punches a small hole in the wall, the same size as the object attacking it.

So, more realistic would be: shorten stone wall sections to the same length as palisade wall sections.

I don't know but I don't like how almost invulnerable the Rams are.

In AoE II Not even 1 is enough to destroy a Town Center.

[sternstaub]

It could also be interesting to give palisade walls a heigh-factor. So that if a piece is damaged, it shrinks and becomes passable for certain units. But this would probably not play well gameplay-wise; it would make palisades less effective against cav, because the horses can jump higher than infantry or siege weapons - thus the narration logic would go against the balancing logic here. 

 or what if palisades could stop troops for a short time, but siege rams for a longer time. 

On 09/09/2022 at 12:02 AM, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

I would like to see palisades gain effectiveness versus cavalry and lose some versus siege.

clarification required; what is the meaning of "effectivenes versus siege"? it can mean that siege weapons deal more damage against pals, or that pals can stop siege weapons as mentioned above.

 

On 08/11/2022 at 6:46 PM, Dakara said:

No change

No change wall 

No change palisade, we can move easy army if we kill one part of palisade

No change sword cav against wall or palisade

 

Well, this is kind of conservative, but you might have a point. Thing is, there is no "right way" of doing it here. Con

On 04/11/2022 at 5:55 PM, LienRag said:

That is how they worked historically, and why palissades are interesting tactically, so it should stay how it is.

Maybe this is more about the "ram" part than the "palisades" part, after all ? 

1 hour ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

I don't know but I don't like how almost invulnerable the Rams are.

Swordcav is good against it, unless ram is escorted by spears. However, i agree, because it does not feel very dynamic. It feels like "pull your troops back and pump damage into that ram or your CC is going down". Maybe add some dynamic here, like halving the ram HP, but for instance giving it a health regen for garrisoned units (which "repair" the ram), or increase the repair factor. More troop interaction with vehicles, so to speak. So that not only the defender, but also the attacker needs to somehow focus his troops on his rams. This would make them more of a factor in the overall troop movement strategy, considering the low speed of siege vehicles.

 

On 11/09/2022 at 10:33 AM, alre said:

potentially quite heavy because it could need a range query for every hit dealt to the palisade, maybe two (one for each end of the palisade segment).

where are palisades, palisade placement and damage calc at the moment? how is the handling of these things done? maybe could save time to handle as arrays, if placement logic provides that opportunity. Because a wall can (but doesn't have to) be a straight chain of one element after another. If the walls would be saved as an array of neighboring elements (which they probably are), then this check would not be costly. 

Problem is, that if one section of that wall were to be destroyed, the array would change, the element would be removed and the gap (in the array data structure, not the wall) might be closed (because one element of the wall was destroyed). This can have some impact exspecially for big arrays.A possible "solution" could actually also be something like the height factor suggested above, because palisade sections would not neccessarily have to be destroyed, but only damaged until "0 height". The entity itself would remain intact, but lose impact on the gameplay. Thus, the array data structure would not have to change, because there still would be an element to keep track of. Throws the question about what happens if the wall owner wanted to remove a section of his own wall. For that matter, it could make sense to have a "long palisade" and "short palisade", where the "short palisade" is for making gates etc. and the "long palisade" is for limes-like things. Might also be done for stone walls (consider athen trait of "long stone walls").

==

but these are just some spontaneous thoughts on it. Maybe they can provide some inspiration for someone. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by sternstaub

[Lion.Kanzen]

12 minutes ago, sternstaub said:

Swordcav is good against it, unless ram is escorted by spears

the Rams never come alone. that's the problem.