Version 0.9 progressing

[Finite]

Why not replace all cities by these walls? One could thus have cities of any size and shape, not just 2x2? A rich city might enclose 8 tiles, whereas a poor one might only enclose 1 or 2 tiles.

Nice idea, but likely would require the walls to be IN BETWEEN tiles instead of on tiles (like they currently seem to be) to make 2x2 cities look anything feasible. If the engine supports this I'd like it so that wall is between tiles and passing through it is not possible unless flying (except through gates). Might be it doesn't, though.

For more complexity could add the possibility to smash gates with a combat check (where rams get a huge bonus), but I'd be happy with non-destructible unmanned walls, too.

[LPhillips]

KGB,
I really don't see the problem with the "unrealistic" mechanics. It's a useful map feature, and the player's imagination is left to decide exactly how big the wall is. I'm quite familiar with ancient siege techniques, and defeating cities with ramps goes back to Alexander. As you stated, the Romans used a slave labor force (not something you drag around with an ordinary unit of troops as represented in Warbarons). Walls were only destroyed when a force had uninterrupted control of an area. Cities are not destroyed in Warbarons; their capabilities are reduced to the point that they're useless. The graphics are a bit deceptive, but that is an obvious fact. That is why a little investment can get it up and running in less than several years (replace the barrels you stoved in here, repair the gates, rebuild the storehouses and stock the city's food supply).

Gates and other defensible things are destroyed or heavily damaged in battle, which is why the defensive rating comes down. The walls are not being destroyed and rebuilt during the sieges of Warbarons. The gates are being breached, the city is being starved, etc. Granted, the timescale is silly. It takes years to break a real city, and if there is any kind of space/time scale in Warbarons then this obviously can't match the travel time. Finally, yes, the gates of a city are opened to an attacker if there is no defender present. There are gates there. There are no gates on a sheer wall to allow an army to pass in a timely manner, and no frightened citizens whose meager militia fearfully turns over the territory.

The only way in which the city sieges of Warbarons make sense is that the entire civilized world of Warbarons doesn't use conventional walls at all in cities, but instead employs lesser fortifications and barriers so that instant combat is always possible. So let's not dicker over the idiocy of trying to bring a timescale and realism to the sieges of Warbarons. It's just not there. And if it's realism you want, and not breaking the fourth wall, then magical vortex barriers are about as far from that as you can go.

LP

[KGB]

LPhillips,

And if it's realism you want, and not breaking the fourth wall, then magical vortex barriers are about as far from that as you can go.

So you believe Unicorns are realistic enough to be OK but magical energy barriers aren't? You need to take better reality altering drugs. My magic mushroom trip definitely allow for both Unicorns and Mystical Energy Barriers

Here's my problem with the wall concept.

1) You already have admitted you just want them as a way to create impassible terrain to land/fliers. This of course will just create more choke points which you are already are saying is a big problem in another thread. So won't this make that problem worse???
2) We already have impassible terrain in the form of Lava (excluding Elementals). This is to you not aesthetically pleasing. But these walls are only going to look good on plains. Put them in the middle of a mountain range or middle of a swamp etc and they are going to look as out of place as lines of Lava do. Not to mention how are they going to end without forming a square or going off the map and look good? They will look very strange only being say 10-12 squares long to block off a small area.

Now back to the scale problem and how out of scale they truly are.

Scene: KGB is introducing an old Warlords player to Warbarons
KGB: You should go over to Warbarons and check it out since you can't get DLR running. It's a really well done game that takes the best of Warlords 1,2,3 and 4.
New Player: Cool.
New Player goes checks out screen shots. The typical screen shots here
http://warbarons.browsergamez.com/pictures/ plus a new one with those walls (with a couple of cities added to that shot near the ruin + 1 tower).
New Player: Looks great visually. But you didn't mention it had Tactical Combat.
KGB: It doesn't have Tactical Combat.
New Player: Sure it does. Look at that one shot (references the Walls shot). You can see a close up of city walls with gates, buildings, a church, a Wizard tower, roads etc. Just like Age of Wonders tactical screen shots
http://www.triumphstudios.com/ageofwond ... een10.html
http://www.counterfrag.com/screenshots/ ... ic/003.jpg
KGB: Oh, that screen shot. That's not a tactical combat map. That's just the main world map. That thing you think is a church is a ruin. That Wizard tower is a Fortress tower that holds whole armies. Those 'buildings' aren't individual buildings, they are cities.
New Player: Whaaaaat? Come on, stop kidding me. That looks like a tactical city combat map to me.
KGB: Nope. Look closely again at those buildings (indicating a White City). See, that's a city with its own walls.
New Player (stammering): But...but...but those large walls. I guess I can station men on them for defense and capture them or knock holes in them?
KGB: Nope.
New Player (vacant stare): Well what's their purpose then?
KGB: Just to provide an aesthetically pleasing impassible barrier.
New Player (chuckling): Only to land armies right? I can obviously fly over them or tunnel under them.
KGB: Sorry, not possible.
New Player (looking incredulous): How would 30 ft tall wall or even 300 ft tall wall stop fliers or tunneling?
KGB: They aren't 300 ft tall. They are infinitely tall and extend infinitely deep in the earth and are made of an unbreakable substance. You ever read the sci-fi series Ringworld. It had a ring built around a star at 1 earth orbit with unbreakable walls thousands of miles high. Think of them like that.
New Player (laughing): Riiiiigt... Why not just make them magical barriers. Fits better theme wise.
KGB (smiles): Dunno. I already suggested it.
New Player (voice dripping with sarcasm): But I can see armies and stuff on the other side of these walls. How do you explain that?
KGB (shrugging): Maybe they are made of see through glass? Or maybe you have a Wizard with a Wizard Eye spell that lets your vision extend on the other side of the walls. All I know is that you can't pass over/under them, capture them, break them or do anything else to them.
New Player (shaking head): You know, maybe this isn't the game for me after all. I think I'll get that Virtual Machine running XP to play DLR and/or Age of Wonders.
Fade to Black

KGB

P.S. Look at that second city shot in Age of Wonders. That bluish mystical energy is what I am imagining the magical barrier would look like. It would be animated like water so that it shimmers.

[piranha]

To be honest the wall will mainly be about a nice new terrain that looks good, but does the same thing as ridge do. It will be possible to fly over it. Perhaps it will cost different to fly over it than it does with the ridge and it could be possible in the future to let catapults break a way through it for example.
The only thing I can come up with that would be absolute impossible to move over is some magic field wall. Perhaps next version if that is something the game needs.

[LPhillips]

KGB,

You don't have to drag in a hypothetical proposal from another thread, add a suggestion about sandworms no-one has made (strawman?) and introduce an imaginary character with precisely your point of view to make the point you've already made. No one has proposed impassable walls in this thread. I think pointing that out should be enough to end the discussion. I've simply argued for an aesthetically pleasing land barrier, and that's the only thing that anyone has proposed here. No one wants to dispute that. I just want to point out the very obvious reasons why an army might not be able to walk through a wall simply because you don't station troops there. All we need is a feasible excuse, and it's easily found.

And remember, the one who proposed a "magical wall" was me. In the aforementioned thread, which is not this one
It's just that arguing for realism while touting a proposal of a magical wall is nonsensical. I don't dislike the idea of an impassible barrier. It also seems like a bad argument to say that "this resembles Heroes of Might and Magic (or insert other game name) in this respect, so it must play exactly the same way!!!!!!"

LP

[KGB]

LPhillips,

It was obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek humor. I hope you at least got a chuckle out of it.

Piranha,

If fliers can fly over these walls like ridges and siege units will be able to breach them in a future version then it makes a whole lot more sense to add them to the game (even though I think ridges are one of the nicest looking map features). Especially the breaching part since you can't currently breach a ridge. It would be great if the breach feature could be in version 0.9.

KGB

[Negern]

KGB

Take it for what it is, a good looking terrain feature that might give birth to epic maps such as "Deserted City". Sure, it could be done with ridges and lava too, but then again all terrain types could be single colored squares without it theoretically affecting the game other than making it look like shit.

I don't think guardians should be needed for the walls. It's not harder climbing up a ridge or a mountain (both impossible terrains for land units), swim across a river or dock a ship next to a grass plain instead of a dock - there are tons of weird things in this game that escapes criticism because people have get used to those things being that way. If the walls had been around when you began to play and the river was a new feature, you would probably sit here and wonder why trees next to rivers can't be cut down "IRL-style".

About the scale of the walls, I don't think it's weirder than crows being as big as 1/4 of a city. Have you ever seen someone attack a stack of elephants with a crow thinking that "Yeah, this crow will fuck those elephants up real bad, cause in real life a crow this big would definitely win"?

I've never seen that, and for the sake of humanity I hope no one else has either. Most people are well aware that the game developers has few if any naturalistic ambitions. Sure, it's not always logic and proportionate, but since the human brain allows abstract thinking I don't see the problem.

[smursh]

All this talk about wall scale is ridiculus anyway. Didn't anyone see the Lord of the rings or King Kong. Fantasy walls can be ridiculously huge. Same is true with the wall in Game of Thrones. I like the graphics, if they are a variation on the ridgeline for variation, why not?