City walls. Are they worth the bother?

[Jim W]

Subject line pretty well says it. I find that I very seldom build city walls, save in cases where I have a nearly-isolated city, with heavy-duty enemy forces comeing at me all the time.

What does everybody else say?

Jim W

[Vespasian]

I always build them. If you share a continent with a warmonger and failed to knock them out earlier on, they're almost essential. The main incentive to build walls, however, is their upkeep cost: 0. That makes it almost always a good thing to build.


------------------
"On ne peut pas apprendre la chance si on n'est pas hardii."-Napolean
[This message has been edited by Vespasian (edited March 25, 2000).]

[The Mad Monk]

I always shoot for the Great Wall wonder (or its equivalent), and build walls in all of my cities as metallurgy approaches (if I built the GW, it approaches very slowly). It's only good sense; even if you don't lose the city under attack, it's a pain to lose population every time the attacker gets lucky.

[Scouse Gits]

I don't build walls in every city. I do in the following cases:
1) Capital
2) Wonder cities
3) Ports - Barb dragoons making a surprise attack is the main reason. The barbs seem to "know" the towns on the coast without them!
4) Any city near the front line, and ALWAYS in a city just captured.
I don't have walls in "safe" cities, such as interior cities on my home continent. The exception to the rule about ports, are those one sqaure islands. As yet, I never seen barb marines.
----------
SG (2)

City walls are a must if your playing against a human player. I build them anyways. They have no upkeep, so why not?

------------------
Webmaster---Come to the Civworld Forums

"If you cannot beat them, don't join them, instead corrupt them, make them join you, then throw them off a cliff."

"Greatness is measured by how evil you are, the more evil, the greater you become."

[War4ever]

the two theories i have on walls are this....
1) if you build them early you can sit back and rush other improvements ie markets and libraries... which is good for the long term game especially if you on a large map.
2) if i am on a small map and my opponent is close by i wont bother with walls as i will be rushing units to the slaughter house

[Jim W]

One reason for _not_ building walls everywhere is the initial cost; everywhere you're building a wall, you can't build anything else until the wall's done.

I always seem to hit a point, after about the first five cities, where I'm pushed to be able to build anything quickly, and spending money on a wall around a city that doesn't have a demonstrated danger near it seems like poor use of resources to me.


im W

[KhanMan]

My view on walls is that I never build them until a front has stopped expanding (ie. when I hit another civ, and I want peace/alliance, or I'm not in the mood to crush them). Then I build walls in cities on that front.

I think the wall's defense bonus combines rather nicely with my frontier towns on forest/mountain/hill squares... I love it when the other guy forgets to do the math, and loses a lot of attacking units.

-KhanMan the paranoid expansionist

Yes, walls are worth it. I build them in all cities. No maintenace, why not?

[War4ever]

because while your building walls i have two more settlers per each wall you build thus i have a larger and more powerfull empire including more troops in and out of the field.... these troops will prevent you from reaching my cities

[adaMada]

I ALWAYS build city walls, in every city. The 3x defensive bonus is worth it, and I generally don't build too many cities, and defend the ones I do build well. Most of the time, with city walls, only two or three units can hold a city agianst multiple hit-and-run raids.

------------------
adaMada

[KhanMan]

aM: Uh, I hate to ask this, but:
How many mp games have you played? My limited experience has been that, when a human player wants your city, (s)he will normally send at least ten units, timed to attack the same turn. You're risking alot my not expanding...

-KhanMan the paranoid expansionist

[War4ever]

KhanMan you hit the nail on the head..... expansion is a must in MP..... if you don't your dead......especially in a small map..

[Sieve Too]

In SP against the AI, don't bother. Build two more Settlers instead. Get Elephants/Crusaders and Diplos early. Connect your cities with roads. Rush units to the attack point and take out the AI before they strike even once at your city.

You should make it a habit to engage the AI outside of your city radii. There's nothing more annoying or harder to get rid of than a fortified AI Phalanx sitting on your mined hill. And if you're really unlucky, the AI and barbs will pillage all your hard-earned mines, irrigation and roads.
What good is a wall protected city to you if it can't produce anything?

[tobyr]

Build city walls, but do not build them too soon!

If you build them early, the cost in lost turns, when you could have built something else, is too great. The biggest potential cost is that you could have founded a number of additional cities instead of building walls. I would rather build four more cities and lose one, than put up walls to protect the six cities I already had.

A great feature of the great wall wonder is that by the time it expires, it only costs you a few turns to build real walls.

I play the ToT 4-map fantasy game, in which the considerations for building walls are somewhat different:

Underground and undersea, you can postpone walls a long time unless under heavy attack.

On ground level, you need walls usually before 1AD to deal with powerful barbarians.

In the sky, you need walls a little later, also to deal with very powerful barbarians.

Many of the tribes in the fantasy game have a good defensive unit that can really hold a city if it has a wall (unless attacked by dragon or Kraken barbarians early in the game).

The great wall ("Excaliber") expires earlier in the fantasy game, sometimes right after you build it. Also, in the fantasy game you are relatively likely to want to bribe a few expensive barbarians (250 to 500 gold each) around 1 AD. Where do you get
gold like that? When desperate, you can sell some city walls!
- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[Steve Clark]

Since I only build 10-12 cities, I always build walls (usually by the Great Wall and then individually in most of my cities after Metallurgy). The reason? Put a couple Pikemen behind those walls and you don't have to worry about defenses for a long, long time (against the AI of course). The GW is not the first improvement I build. I usually wait until I can use caravans to built it all. Once the GW or walls are built, I just concentrate on building up my science city, cranking out millions of caravans and then enough units to clobber the enemies.

[inca911]

I enjoy building up the heart of my empire, a dozen perfect cities, and will build city walls only in chokepoint cities unless an imminent threat makes a rush-built wall a necessity. This happens very seldom since I use a lot of fortresses to prevent anyone from approaching my cities, and stacked units on the front line to prevent bribery. My opinion is if you've let anyone get so close to your cities that you are counting on walls to save you, you have a poor defense which is inviting trouble. There is no doubt that the Great Wall is very nice if you are building/ conquering tons of small cities and rushing off with minimal defense for them. I simply dislike the micromanagement aspect of so many small cities so I never bother with building the Great Wall. I think your civ style largely dictates how much you like this Wonder or city walls in general. Perfectionists love walls to keep them safe. Conquerers don't like them since they have no intent on staying put in any one place for a period of time.

[The Mad Viking]

I don't build very many. (vs AI)

I build the Great Wall. What no-one's mentioned is the tremendous diplomatic advantage it gives you. People fall all over themselves to offer cease-fires and treaties. It lets you concentrate on growth and research.

It also lets you build a city in enemy territory, because the wall is there instantly
I delay metallurgy, have embassies to check if another civ is researching it, and only then build walls in perimeter cities. By then I'm more than ready to kick @$$. If I lose an odd city to Barbs its easy to take back, but I hate giving up an advance to another CIV.

[The Mad Monk]

You delay metallurgy too???

Ever consider how fitting that is, considering the original builders of the Great Wall and what they did with their gunpowder (or didn't do...)?

[arii]

Almost never build them. I prefere to expand, and have a few offensive units on hand for when the opponent gets close. Also I never attack cities with walls; I use dips to get the wall down 1st. So when you feel all safe behind your walls, the next thing you know the wall is down and 3-4 crusaders are coming at you (and you wasted a lot of shields building the wall).

[mindseye]

Hey, the Chinese did a LOT with gunpowder!

During the Ming dynasty they had cannons, firearms, sidewheeler riverboats equipped with fireball-hurtling catapults, concussion bombs, smoke shells, beautiful bird-shaped incendiary rocket-bombs, and - coolest of all - anti-ship cruise missiles!

I saw a model of one of these two-stage missiles in a Hong Kong museum. The name translates as "dragon rising from the water". It looked like a torpedo with an elaborate, carved dragon's head and finned tail. Attached were four angled rockets which allowed it to skim above the water's surface. Once it neared the target vessel, a volley of rocket-propelled arrows streaked out of dragon head's open mouth. What a terror weapon!

For a short period in the early 1400's the Chinese could muster fleets of hundreds of ships. The largest were 12-masted giants, triple the size of the biggest American clipper ships. Imagine if one of these fleets, equipped with cruise missiles, had shown up off the mouth of the Thames in 1430! Probably we Americans would now be saying "Ni hau" instead of "Hello"!

- mindseye

I've been building more walls lately. But only on coastal and frontier cities which I can't fortify quikly (not connected by roads etc). But even with them the barbs have been tearing me up. I had a pikeman within walls on a city on a hill and they still got wasted easily from barbs. I was quite mad. I still need offensive units to take these guys out. But I need walls for the coastal cities because the barbs land and attack in the same turn.

[Steve Clark]

What kind of barbs are clobbering your pikemen?

[Adam Smith]

Against the AI, I build city walls only around my capital (wonders) and super science city. Otherwise I use mobile defense. You can build a dip and a crusader for less than the shield cost of walls in one city. Centrally located with good roads, these two units can cover four to six cities each. In case of attack, bribe the first wave of units with dip, then attack with the bribed units and crusader. Sell the walls once you have a good railroad system, since at that point you can immediately bring in units from anywhere.

------------------
"I fear that I shall die a Prince."
-Edward VII, Prince of Wales

[War4ever]

Inca911.... your statement about perfectionists liking walls and conquerers not becaue they never stay put is oh so true...

If i am conquering , there is no way i would waste resources on walls, hell even on an enemies home soil.

the reason why? Purely becasue my invasion force is usually so large that he wont get close, plus i attack in multiple fronts to confuse people and yes sometimes myself

Second is that if he comes with dips, the first thing to go are the walls as the newly conquered city is likely to have lost most but not always all of the other improvements, therefore i don't waste the resources on them.

If i am on multiple islands, ie any place building more settlers for expansion, then i will wall up my core island cities, ie the ones on the same mass as my capital. No point in leaving myself vulnerable, although city walls dont make the paranoid warmonger in me more complacent, especially since walls come down so easy and then your ripe for the picking, so i often have the huge task force awaiting potential poachers or glory hunters. However sometimes accidents occur and i have to fire the military advisor, after i rebuild my civ from ruin

Well its not quite that bad , but i have taken some damage at times, not even mongol armour is inpregnable

I didnt say I built walls as first improvement, W4E. I said I build them. Has nottadamnthing to do with expanding.

[War4ever]

slowhand i guess i am misinformed then, i know all you said is that you build them, i was taking it as i dont' build them in the early game, i assumed you did, sorry

[Aurelius]

Hey, one good thing about building city walls is tearing them down to rush buy a wonder...

AU

I think that city walls need to be built, but only very late. The units in the early game that can win against a fortified defensive unit (phalanx, pikeman, musketeers, riflemen, alpine troops, mech. inf.) are attack units. (catapults, cannons, artillery, howitzer) The solution is to build a mounted unit. (horseman, elephant, dragoons, calvary.) The mounted units can beat the attack unit before it gets to the city. After armors, though, you need city walls, or you will be blasted into oblivion.



------------------
Long live the Communists!
-- SilverDragon

[DaveV]

The greatest danger to cities in single-player is the barbarian pirates. If a shipload of crusaders or dragoons lands on clear land next to one of your cities, they can take it out in a flash. Once Chivalry is discovered, I will build walls in any coastal city that I can't afford to lose. Generally, the only city I can't afford to lose is my capital. The alternative to walls is to convert any coastal grass/plains/tundra/desert to slower terrain.

In multi-player, of course, it's a different story...