Age of Strategy Forums

try to use cataoults or balistas

I always thought walls in general should be able to garrison a unit. Gates should too imo.

It would also help make walls more useful + add more differences between them and palisades

ok, we can run a vote on it. but specify which knd of units needs to be able to be in/on a wall.
thanks

Daniel (the dev) wrote:ok, we can run a vote on it. but specify which knd of units needs to be able to be in/on a wall.
thanks

What about this?

Units allowed to be be garrisoned also in walls:

• ranged
• ground (no warship, no cannon ship)
• not mounted (no horse archer, no chariot archer, no elephant archer)

that means: skirmisher, archer, poison archer, fire archer, longbowman, slinger, axe thrower, catapult, ballista, trebuchet (all with their higher tiers, like crossbowman)

good
(or we can make a wall upgrade that is able to hol such units, lets vote for the ideas)

Tech: Murder-hole
Allows units to garrison inside walls.
Cost:6 turns.

murder hole was something different as i know

samuelch wrote:Tech: Murder-hole
Allows units to garrison inside walls.
Cost:6 turns.

Call it just Man the walls.

Detros wrote: Call it just Man the walls.

That's better. I think murder-hole will only increase attack +1 for everyone garrisoned.

I disagree that walls should be able to hold siege weapons. First off, it is historically unrealistic, siege weapons were generally built on tops of towers. However, it could also make sieges super impossible...

I think siege weapons should only be allowed in towers, but ranged and infantry should be able to go on walls.

Also, I think units should only be able to get onto a wall through a tower or gate. For instance, if you have 3 lone walls, units can not get onto or off of them, but if you build a gate or tower adjacent to one of those walls, the units can exit/enter the walls via the towers or gates.

I agree with DoomCarrot on this

DoomCarrot wrote:Also, I think units should only be able to get onto a wall through a tower or gate. For instance, if you have 3 lone walls, units can not get onto or off of them, but if you build a gate or tower adjacent to one of those walls, the units can exit/enter the walls via the towers or gates.

Sounds interesting. Are gates used much? It could help them a bit. I hardly use them in SP and in MP I so far play just Core, without gates.
I guess, units on walls won't get any healing and be visible, like with bridges?

Yes, to everything.

What about "embrasures" ?

What is an embrasure?

Alexander82 wrote:What about "embrasures" ?

That could work, highlighting that "only ranged units allowed".

DoomCarrot wrote:What is an embrasure?

In military architecture, an embrasure is the opening in a crenellation. Similar names are a loophole, an arrow loop or an arrowslit. (Wikipedia)

I think these gate and wall need to be another type units. It may cause some problems in some campaigns if just add stats into original walls/gates.

Oh, well I don't see how that is different than a wall... I always imagined that is what the walls would look like anyways

I agree with doom carrot in that Seige units should not be allowed to go on top of the walls. Archers and infantry units only.

I like the idea of having access only through gates and towers/castles as well however, units atop the walls should be susceptible to damage. For example, units atop the walls can be damaged by ranged units only but seige and infantry units will damage the wall itself.

Lastly, if a wall is destroyed, is the unit atop it destroyed as well or not?

Hm, those are actually some good questions. Personally, I think it would be a little weird to kill the units on the wall, and based on other buildings in the game, units "probably" shouldn't die when the wall collapses. However, I'm not very opinionated on those points, what does everyone else think?

jboer2 wrote:For example, units atop the walls can be damaged by ranged units only but seige and infantry units will damage the wall itself.

I don't think there is similar "two possible targets at one tile, target selected depending on the type of attacking unit" mechanism currently in the engine.

Currently, even units atop bridges can't be directly damaged, you attack the bridge instead. With units on walls being attackable the "target is in TC, damage unit vs. target is in any player build building, damage building" difference would get quite complicated. Especially if it is named similarly to "arrow slits", those were made specially so you cna shoot down from walls and can hardly me shot yourself.

Detros wrote:Especially if it is named similarly to "arrow slits", those were made specially so you cna shoot down from walls and can hardly me shot yourself.

I agree that arrow slits were made for that purpose. I was thinking more a a unit on top of a wall as opposed to inside it. If we're going with arrow slits then the unit can't really be targeted.

DoomCarrot wrote:I always thought walls in general should be able to garrison a unit. Gates should too imo.

It would also help make walls more useful + add more differences between them and palisades

I agree with this. It is a very realisric suggestion amd WOULDA further differentiate between palisades amd stone walls, as well as making them more useful.

Nothing sucks more than walls getting rekt because shielders are tanking arrows amd you cant melee.

Also, whats up with the palisade wall? If you add connecting pieces, the top most piece forms a cross section, it jist looks terrible.

Also, would it be doable to add to the stone wallls to make them visually connect to fortress towers, etc? Because it also looks really bad with a gap between walls and towers.

I agree palaside connections look kind of weird still lol, but as for towers....

I usually build the towers behind my walls

Although I agree that sieges can't enter wall but because of 1 speed they can't even pass through gates so I think they can b garrisoned in gates but can't attack from gates and if gate (or wall) is destroyed garrisoned unit will survive

Wasn't that the original reason as to why he suggested that sieges can be garrisoned inside gates?

So the idea is all ranged infranty except sieges can be garrisoned in and move along walls and the only way to enter is through gates or a tower adjacent to the wall and sieges ( or any other unit) can enter gate but cannot attack and sieges cannot enter wall from gate also the ability to unlock garrison in walls can be called arrow slit and researched in tc or advancement centre and no unit can move along wall until this tech is researched. So gates will have a single garrison space from the beginning but wall will have single space after the tech is researched. Did I summarize it right? This will be so awesome and realistic I can't wait for it to be implemented

But wait I just remembered that walls can also be connected diagonally but soldiers can only move along adjacent walls how to solve this problem?

I guess the only way around this problem is to build a tower adjacent to diagonally connected walls to make a pathway for garrisoned units, or simply just make a wall adjacent to the two walls