Putting archers on walls and even building stone walls in general isn’t that useful b/c siege weapons are so useful in general and everyone builds them. You’ll need them anyways against any forts and to destroy your opponents buildings. And your stone is usually better used on forts which can attack and be much more efficiently repaired.
Instead when a wall now would be destroyed it will instead be “breached” where a hole appears in it and enemy armies can freely move through the hole but the top part of the wall where the archers are is untouched so archers can continue to fire down. A breached wall can be destroyed but when its in the breached stated it will take significantly less damage from siege units making the siege tower a much more tempting and useful option to clear the top part of pesky archers. A breached wall won’t have the hole filled until it’s fully repaired.
Normly, you fix the outside wall first, then you finish whit the inside, to let the enemy think that the wall is already fix.
You destroy wall from top to botum. Because the base of the wall have more mass on it, allowing to absorb more impact energy.
You can only punch a hole in a wall, when the wall is thin, mostly when the wall is only partialy fix or some civilisation defence choice.
yeah but that’s not really very fun having stone walls and never getting to use them, so sometimes gameplay trumps reality.
I haven’t had any issues with walls nor gameplay nor reality, just build actual gate houses i.e. double gate surrounded by walls filled with archers, boom.
Use artillery like trebs or mangonels to kill their cannons, cannons melt walls and appropriately so.
Also, this is already kinda how the walls function, I don’t see a reason to buff a broken wall, if they Target the wall your archers are standing on that feels like strategy to me, and 50% of the time when the wall is destroyed the archers on it won’t even die.
That’s not at all how they function, because no one uses them. Show me a single high level game where anyone has ever used a siege tower. Except on a select few maps they are mostly a waste of stone. The walls require units to defend themselves unlike a keep which can defend itself. It’s always better to spend stone on a keep rather than a wall because cannons and trebs are so plentiful so quickly. Even rams can take down stone walls without much trouble.
If stone walls are more vulernable, require a large investment of units to be useful and defend, then those disadvantages should be made up for with a strong defensive building, one that can still be used even when there are tons of siege weapons on the map.
You are rigth.
Rigth now, the stone wall feal like a palisade wall and the palisade wall feal like a fence. XD