Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Castle walls I am pretty sure were dug in the ground, not 'raised' with ground. If you used soil, dirt, mud, anything to raise a keep/castle wall, it would be weak as hell and more than likely topple down by just blowing on it. Walls were dug into the ground by at least a meter, not raised.
So yes, realism is claimed.
Building significant stone walls atop man-made clay embankments would be a recipe for disaster and subsidence.
It would only be palisade atop clay embankments to form a redoubt, but even then a significant portion of the embankments would be formed after the palisade was erected to maximise strength/integrity.
They should really limit significant stone walls to excavations (i.e. footings), rather than made-up ground
so now you have taken away the defensive tactic to slow down wall jumpers it is now out of balance even more favoring the wall jumpers.
so arguing realism, how real is it for a player to use a horse to jump over a stone wall defending a town?
realism argue now killed next.