Walls - Creating new strategic points

In my opinion, walls should be way more important than they are today. In my personal experience, building "pressure" walls or trying to cover big spaces really doesn't work because walls can be broke very easily nowadays, since you don't have to actually destroy the unit, just attack it.

If you watch any experienced player you will see a default behavior of making three man walls (with always 1 troop on each side) in every important city, while rarely using it for blocking especific passages or surrounding enemies positions.

So, I think that walls should work like they were supposed to (at least I think they were meant to be that way). You wouldn't be able to break the wall if you don't destroy the troops on it's sides. Which would make people actually reinforce walls and give a new dynamic to the matches.

What do you think?

No, with the wall glitching and the ease some strategies can wall it can be dangerous. Also walls can simply be with more units (not just 1) and the walling units (militia, infantry) even get +1 def in the wall position, so say in a 8 unit city you make a 3 man wall with 4 in centre and 2 in edges, you got a defence value of a city of 6 units on each side, it'd make GW way too op (combined with the free militia).

Ok, thank you Aristo.

But let's keep in mind that the wall glitch is an exception and it will be fixed ASAP.

Yes, if only because walls right now are pitiful but essential things. However, one unit walls would still exist even if all the units in the wall needed to die because it's so much cheaper than properly guarding a city and still gives an extra turn to defend it.

Also if you're going to do this remove the +1 defence thing to units in a wall or you'd get some uncrackable defence.

I like the idea. It would make the game more dynamic. instead of a battle of who can auto produce more. people would have to really think about where and how to attack, as opposed to who can spam more and get from A to B the fastest. and as for GW being to powerfull. i dissagree. millitia are cheap. in any strat. they cost virtually nothing. other strats can spam millitia just as easy. I give it a thumbs up. make a strategy game strategical.

作者： Dionysus, 02.10.2011 at 20:52

I like the idea. It would make the game more dynamic. instead of a battle of who can auto produce more. people would have to really think about where and how to attack, as opposed to who can spam more and get from A to B the fastest. and as for GW being to powerfull. i dissagree. millitia are cheap. in any strat. they cost virtually nothing. other strats can spam millitia just as easy. I give it a thumbs up. make a strategy game strategical.

Militia is cheap but in other strategies it has bad statistics and moves slow. In GW they move fast and have 5 attack and 5 defence, it's like a balanced infantry. And their spammability is tremendous, hence GW is strong. You can go spam militias as IF and try to win if you think other strats can spam militia too.

New idea: maybe this could be a seperate strategy? This'd have very interesting strategic potential.

As a post note to what i said: think about what that would do for battles over the oceans. it would make naval commander a usefull strat. destroyers would be usefull. and as a reply to aristosseur: i dissagree. offensive units still poduce more attack with out a strat. yes they cost more. but who is going to spam 500 millita. further more. you arnt going to win spaming millitia. and movement isnt that big of a deal. your just going to incredibly more difficult to kill. i think it brings ballance. you would have to play both offense and defence. you would have to do more than just produce more than the other guy. it highlights strengths and weakness of every strat. Tanks can form lines. yes they have low D. but when moving you could make lines that people would have to break to move forward tanks could combat a millitai spam. ect. the only negative i see coming from this is games will take longer to play. not really a negative tho.

Reply to aristossoer: that is an goodi idea as well. i like the first one better tho. id be down with either

I think what we really need is a better reason for people not wanting to attack walls, or a larger punishment for attacking them, as it is sending one unit to break a wall defeats the purpose of the wall, how about this, instead of having to kill a unit to bring down the wall, make it so that a certain percentage for example 50% of the wall force must be defeated to break the wall, this way walls are not too strong, but are stronger, 100 bombers would defeat 100 infantry wall this way, and would do so easily, but they would not be able to send 1 bomber to break the wall, that50 % is adjustable, you could make it 25% or 30% if 50% is too much.

some example, you could spend 5 infantry to make a wall and they would have to send at least 3 bombers to take it down @ 50%.
a wall of 10 infantry would require at least 5 or 6 bombers to break, better than what we currently have.

The intention is to make a player uses more units to break walls than just a single unit, this accomplishes the goal.

I've always wondered why when you lose the battle, the wall is still broken. I thought it was some limitation with the game engine, rather than by design. While I would dislike having to slog through walls with more than 1 unit, (would totally change approaches in game) i like the idea if its possible to implement.

作者： Dionysus, 02.10.2011 at 22:06

offensive units still poduce more attack with out a strat. yes they cost more. but who is going to spam 500 millita. further more. you arnt going to win spaming millitia. and movement isnt that big of a deal. your just going to incredibly more difficult to kill. i think it brings ballance. you would have to play both offense and defence. you would have to do more than just produce more than the other guy. it highlights strengths and weakness of every strat. Tanks can form lines. yes they have low D. but when moving you could make lines that people would have to break to move forward tanks could combat a millitai spam. ect. the only negative i see coming from this is games will take longer to play. not really a negative tho.

This is how Turkey carries in 10k games, with 500 militia which can be afforded while others can't afford to kill them, your post implies that both players have infinite money. GC Tanks cost 120 for 9 attack 9/120=0,075, GW militia cost 20 for 5 attack, 5/20=0,25. To get real: you need 10 tanks for 90 attack, 1200, while you need 18 militia, 360. If you hold all of eastern Europe you cannot afford 9 tanks per turn but GW wherever it may be it can easily afford 18 units and 360 gold and will easily overrun you, in fact you need 2 major western European countries to match 1200 per turn. You can see now that in tanks you buy 0,075 attack while in militia 0,25 attack, so either learn to play or listen to someone that knows, let alone the fact tanks have lower defence. Given the free useful units every capture you make (unlike GC which cannot effectively use free militia) and the limited money, GW militia spam is one of the best strategies there is and to date the only one I cannot beat 1v1 (Barrymore included too), and great users of it is kasap and Fruit.

I like Sony's idea best about breaking, to have a limit on breaking rather than absolute victory over the line, because even in realistic terms, a defensive line will be disrupted if it meets a certain percentage of attacking opposition.

I guess i'm the only 1 for this. I'd really help me on the finainces cuz militia is cheap. But it would give me the power to own everyone else with a perfect defence and perfect attack.:noidea:

This idea seems good; it adds a purpose to walls for experienced players bar delaying the opposition. In order to prevent the overpowering of strategies such as GW, perhaps the +1 defence to units when in a wall could be removed when a wall numbers more than 5 units?

GW is nerfed, militia is not a big deal now.
and the wall glitch fixed too.

support

You necromancers.

作者： Goblin, 15.03.2013 at 13:26

Making PD the most powerfull strategy and making attacking strategies less usefull (blitz would suck even more) ...in my humble opinion.

We could adapt PD to this new situation.

作者： Goblin, 15.03.2013 at 13:26

Idk i just hate the idea that i could get in a situation when i will have to attack someones wall of 50 infantry.

Well, it's called besiege and creates a whole new strategic situation while not adding any complexity to the game.

作者： Goblin, 15.03.2013 at 14:59

作者： Pinheiro, 15.03.2013 at 14:34

作者： Goblin, 15.03.2013 at 13:26

Making PD the most powerfull strategy and making attacking strategies less usefull (blitz would suck even more) ...in my humble opinion.

We could adapt PD to this new situation.

作者： Goblin, 15.03.2013 at 13:26

Idk i just hate the idea that i could get in a situation when i will have to attack someones wall of 50 infantry.

Well, it's called besiege and creates a whole new strategic situation while not adding any complexity to the game.

Yes a whole new strategic situation ...but that does not mean it will be better.

I would agree at least that in order to break a wall you need to kill at least 1 unit in the wall.

how is PD gonna be op?

PD gets the same +2 defense inside a city and in a line.

blitz players can actually get boosted with this, since i can reinforce with more troops in 1 line.

The game mechanics when it comes to attacking walls seems to be that attacking it moves both units to the mean of their positions and then doing a typical battle. Redesigning this would require complete redesign of how walls work, and some way to keep both units in their original positions while still participating in the battle. Support, but I don't think it'd be feasible.

Walls are OP enough already...

I would love this idea!!

I never proposed anything in this game and to be honest it was in my mind for a long time to propose something like this.
I support your idea with some corrections.
As someone said here, you don't necesarely need to kill all the units in a defence line to break it, half of them would be ok.
Also, Goblin said he would hate the idea to be in a situation where he needs to kill a wall of 50 inf. In fact, those 50 inf from the wall are now in the city, so in order to take a city you either destroy it's defence in it, as it is now, or the defence in the wall...in both cases you still need to kill those units.

The only thing that would be changed drastically it would be the number of walls a player breaks, especially in the turn before reinforcements. With this idea implemented it would cost you more to create chaos in your opponent defence simply by not being able to break so many walls.
As I see it, nobody would make walls with tons of infantry, as nobody keeps tons of infantry in their cities for defence now...they will need those units to expand and attack and those who will make "unbreakable" walls will be those who now stack infantry in their capitals.
In world games I already saw players selecting infantry to autoproduce in their home countries...so when you reach the capital you have a huge army to beat. The fact that the army is in the wall or in the city does not matter, you have to pass over it in order to take the city.

I think the walls in this case would be 8 militia walls in cities with 8 reinforcements, 5 militia walls in cities with 5 reinf and so on, except you are not playing a strategy which make militia playable units...so in order to break the wall in, let say, Paris, you will need 2 or 3 offence units that can kill at least 4 of the militias so the wall can fall.
Having to beat all the units in the wall would be to much in my opinion. That will require to many units to spend on breaking walls...so the game will become too predictable.

EDIT: Also, about the PD...i think this will make it less powerfull, not OP. Think about how frustrating will be for a PD player to break walls with his low attack infantry...

作者： ezzatam, 16.03.2013 at 03:39

Walls are OP enough already...

i can destroy all of it in 4 turns.
yet, you wasted all your infantry and will run out of money, meanwhile i am using those troops to expand and outproduce you.

作者： Drac, 16.03.2013 at 08:22

I never proposed anything in this game and to be honest it was in my mind for a long time to propose something like this.
I support your idea with some corrections.
As someone said here, you don't necesarely need to kill all the units in a defence line to break it, half of them would be ok.
Also, Goblin said he would hate the idea to be in a situation where he needs to kill a wall of 50 inf. In fact, those 50 inf from the wall are now in the city, so in order to take a city you either destroy it's defence in it, as it is now, or the defence in the wall...in both cases you still need to kill those units.

The only thing that would be changed drastically it would be the number of walls a player breaks, especially in the turn before reinforcements. With this idea implemented it would cost you more to create chaos in your opponent defence simply by not being able to break so many walls.
As I see it, nobody would make walls with tons of infantry, as nobody keeps tons of infantry in their cities for defence now...they will need those units to expand and attack and those who will make "unbreakable" walls will be those who now stack infantry in their capitals.
In world games I already saw players selecting infantry to autoproduce in their home countries...so when you reach the capital you have a huge army to beat. The fact that the army is in the wall or in the city does not matter, you have to pass over it in order to take the city.

I think the walls in this case would be 8 militia walls in cities with 8 reinforcements, 5 militia walls in cities with 5 reinf and so on, except you are not playing a strategy which make militia playable units...so in order to break the wall in, let say, Paris, you will need 2 or 3 offence units that can kill at least 4 of the militias so the wall can fall.
Having to beat all the units in the wall would be to much in my opinion. That will require to many units to spend on breaking walls...so the game will become too predictable.

EDIT: Also, about the PD...i think this will make it less powerfull, not OP. Think about how frustrating will be for a PD player to break walls with his low attack infantry...

your idea explains everything very well.
support this.

Only two problems i got with this idea
first off, making your units 50% effective and no one would wall with more units
second, you could make 1 unit walls around your capital (the old triangle wall), and then reenforce it when the other player attacks which would be really hard to predict and noobs would'nt know what was going on.
other then that i support

作者： Guest, 17.03.2013 at 06:43

作者： Goblin, 17.03.2013 at 05:50

作者： Guest, 16.03.2013 at 07:32

作者： Goblin, 16.03.2013 at 04:41

This idea would be a huge change of gameplay that i personly find nothings wrong with.

You want to bring the battlefield from the cities to the walls ...why? (atWalls).

Attacking a wall who can reinforce himself just like the cities ...it wouldnt add more to the strategy, it would add more to the luck, and probably multiple useless over attacking of weak walls just to be sure you will break them.

...not to mention i dont like my troops staying outside the cities.

I already feel like I'm playing AtWallFuck and AtWallSpam....

You know Wall Fucking would become the most important thing with this idea.

Yes :/ honestly i'd actually rather not have walls at all personally... there is no such thing as something impassable, but I understand why its there and part of the game

oh, the irony.
walling and wf is already important, if you don't wf and wall then you are gona lose when you play againts high rannks

I used to agree with this idea for realism purposes, but I thought about it and I disagree with it. Adding this feature would remove tactical depth from the game. I explain:



This is an example of a chess fork. The black peon on d5 is attacking both the bishop and the knight, and white has to choose which piece to sacrifice. Sometimes the breaking of walls in the game are much like this example, where you force your opponent to pick which country or city to reinforce. And your opponent is forced to predict where you'll attack (and after the removal of turnblock, prediction is one of the most game changing skills in a match).

If we make walls unbreakable, it will lower the skill ceiling of this game yet again, because everyone would wall their cities with all their militia, thus making it very costly to produce this tactical scenario.

Verry bad idea.Op walls with 100+ units lol...

There are many aspects to discuss, but due to my lack of time, I will focus on the arguments that this would lead to huge stacks at walls.

What's the difference between this and stacking on cities? On both situations you would need to sacrifice your units to attack and your enemy would have to spend his units to defend. If he stacks on walls, what would happen next turn, if his wall was destroyed? He would have an unprotected city with no reinforcements left to defend.

Also, if it would be bad for begginers because they couldn't prevent walls being reinforced next turn, how's that different from reinforcing cities that are potential targets to your enemy?

Don't forget that choosing between defense and attack should also be part of the player's strategy, which makes troop manegement more important. With this implemented, you couldn't simply stack units on walls in a hope to win the game by doing that. On the other hand, massive offensive stacks, so common nowadays (specially used by a few who commented here ), wouldn't be so attractive to use, since it wouldn't be that simple to keep the proccess of break wall > huge stacking on city > break another wall > repeat.

作者： Mauzer Panteri, 17.03.2013 at 16:22

Verry bad idea.Op walls with 100+ units lol...

I won't even bother with comments like this, because it adds nothing to the discussion and presents no arguments, just a poor idea based on... nothing.

Well, wallfucking wouldn't quite work in this scenario. Pin, I stand by what I said, it would hurt the game tactically and remove the unpredictability element.