More tactical ways to capture?

In the game, when taking a a city its pretty straight forward. Make a massive army, and one by one click the city with a melee unit and capture it. But in reality, archers and other military units simply defended from other forces, and cut of supplies entering the city. After maybe using siege units, the city would either be starved out or they would surrender.

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is taking a city in civ is kind of strange. It would be more fun IMO if melee and ranged units could provide cover for the siege units, aka stack siege units on them, and if you occupied a tile, it would completely remove any resource benefits from that tile to the city. That way, you could starve cities out very quickly, maybe making them surrender after a few citizens starve to death. It would add more strategy to the game. It would also be nice if when you did attack with melee and ranged units, that you wouldn't actually do damage to the city, but you would hurt any garrisoned units in the city. If there are none, then it would have a 5% chance to kill a citizen or something.

What do you think? Should cities be harder to take, thus adding more planning involved?

First off, I don't one by one attack with melee units. That costs melee units. I use a heavy contingent of siege units. First, the siege units soften up their melee defenders for my melee attack. Then the melee hang back while siege softens the city. Then melee attack the city. Properly done, you lose minimum units and move on to the next city. (Pausing to heal as needed.)

I always thought that enemy units standing on your tile stop city usage. I may be wrong. I tend not to do much pillaging. I try to keep the worker count low and it just uses up turns to fix things I will want to use. I have done a little pillaging for unit repair purposes, especially if I plan to raze the city.

So, all in all, in answer to your question, I think I am putting sufficient planning effort in play to make it fun for me. Your mileage may vary. Good question, though.

Starving could make some sense as an option. However, it's worth emphasizing that this isn't total war and simplification in some areas is necessary to allow a more broad experience of gameplay options.

I remember in Civ3, some people were making a Peloponnesian War scenario and there was talk of simulating a siege by starving a city. If the city's population drops low enough, it'll be easier to take. I don't quite think this is a viable option in Civ5 simply because the casualties you'd get from city bombard while waiting for the city's pop to drop would far outweigh the casualties you'd get for just attacking.

First, if you want harder sieges (which I confess is something I have been thinking for a while now, but didn't implement yet), the easiest way to go is to increase the city hitpoints; you can find that variable inside one of the Defines XML files (IIRC, GlobalDefines.xml), and change it. Double the amount should do it for a more "stable" world, but be aware that the AI may have trouble with taking cities after such change.

Worth trying though.

Second, yes, every unit occupying city tiles effectively blockade that tile from the city workers, so you can simulate siege warfare that way.

I don't know if he wants harder sieges so much as options besides directly attacking.

I could see some kind of argument for increased city hitpoints and reduced city bombard power, but the unit in the city still makes it a headache.

If cities were stronger, city-rushing would be super annoying... (Rush settlers, Build 2nd/3rd city 4 tiles from enemy capital)...

I could see a change for Civ VI that cities that have been starving for a few turns get a combat penalty. Like, 3 turns would be 20%, 5 turns 40%, 7 turns 60%, something like that.

This might be a good way of adding in siege warfare without dramatically changing the dynamics of the game. It would also be a nice boost to pillaging.

redwings1340 said:

I could see a change for Civ VI that cities that have been starving for a few turns get a combat penalty. Like, 3 turns would be 20%, 5 turns 40%, 7 turns 60%, something like that.

This might be a good way of adding in siege warfare without dramatically changing the dynamics of the game. It would also be a nice boost to pillaging.

Click to expand...

There's a really cool mod for CivV that adds health and plagues to the game and, if a city is starving, it has an increased chance of having a disease break out.

I haven't played the latest versions, but I remember my last stint with the mod was brutal, even to invaders. It made the prospect of taking a city that is in the middle of starving to death a rather risky decision.

If CivVI brings back the health mechanic and localized happiness, this would be a good fit that wouldn't be overtly taxing to come up with, since a modder already has.

redwings1340 said:

I could see a change for Civ VI that cities that have been starving for a few turns get a combat penalty. Like, 3 turns would be 20%, 5 turns 40%, 7 turns 60%, something like that.

This might be a good way of adding in siege warfare without dramatically changing the dynamics of the game. It would also be a nice boost to pillaging.

Click to expand...

Good that your bring the future into the debate. My vision for Civ 6 in this regard:

Now that they made the jump into hex+1UPT, the next natural step is to move away from the city-centered empire building. The city should be the most important urban centre of a region, but just that. Resources, all of them, and working them, should move away, still connected to the city from where they draw manpower and to which they supply worked products or resources. To make it short, something like the model of Napoleon TW (not real-time, but the separation of cities and resources). That would really make warfare more strategic AND tactical; siege warfare would be a natural result of such a model, because the attacker will not need to approach or take the city to cripple the enemy's economy, etcetcetc. You get the point.

Plus, such a model will allow for huge maps with open maneuver spaces, something that is a core part of hex+1UPT and is lacking in Civ5.

You can starve out cities. If you pillage/blockade enough tiles a city will begin to starve but it takes as long to lose a population as to grow one (meaning on Epic/Marathon it'd be far faster to just zerg the city than spend several hundred turns taking fire). The city will never fall below 1 pop though since the basic city tile will provide at least 2 food (more with buildings like granary).

As others have already said clicking melee units one at a time is the foolish way to take cities. I tend to soften them up with range/siege first before waltzing a melee unit into the town. After a few promos, I can take cities without ever suffering much damage (a few chariot archers with logistics can whittle down a city without ever suffering return fire then a horseman can rush in for the final attack).

You can also take cities without ever attacking the city. Many times I've harassed supply lines, slaughtered units and pillaged improvements while avoiding a city until the AI sues for peace offering me the city my army is nearest as part of the bargain.

As others have set, melee attack isn't the best way in Civ V to take cities; use ranged and/or siege weapons first to significantly weaken it, then finish it off with melee units.

And if your invading force includes fast movers, it is an option to have them pillage food (and other) tiles.

eris said:

First off, I don't one by one attack with melee units. That costs melee units. I use a heavy contingent of siege units. First, the siege units soften up their melee defenders for my melee attack. Then the melee hang back while siege softens the city. Then melee attack the city. Properly done, you lose minimum units and move on to the next city. (Pausing to heal as needed.)

I always thought that enemy units standing on your tile stop city usage. I may be wrong. I tend not to do much pillaging. I try to keep the worker count low and it just uses up turns to fix things I will want to use. I have done a little pillaging for unit repair purposes, especially if I plan to raze the city.

So, all in all, in answer to your question, I think I am putting sufficient planning effort in play to make it fun for me. Your mileage may vary. Good question, though.

Click to expand...

I agree. A good unit for siege is the cannon, and some musket men to pick off anything that tries to destroy the cannons, or to tank the bombards from the cities. It annoys me to see people blitzkrieg cities with units, then fail miserably.

i read this last night and i was thinking about the starvation idea before i went to sleep, i think that's a good idea but what about the troops? sure one unit can survive on its own but lets say i've got 2 landships, 3 artillery and and three backing Calvary/Rifleman if a city can starve shouldn't the army as well? especially if the farm tiles are plundered. i would add a worker like unit to the game that's goal is to forage for food (I don't know how it would go about this at this time ) if its captured or there isn't one the army starves and a siege around a city can go south quickly. of course that begs the questions how many units constitutes the need of a forager unit, and should the food that is foraged gradually decrease over time? i would say anything over two units. and that its natural for food to decrease in a real situation so it should in the game as well.

all in all if starvation of the city is occurring along with the starvation of an army surrounding the city would definitely make sieges harder/more exciting

thats my thoughts on this. would love to get some feed back on this idea

I would like it if they would increase a city's hp, dramatically decrease their attack strength and tie the their ability to heal to the amount of food tiles they can work and reach after the stored foof have run out, ie if you surround all six hexes to a city then they shouldn't be able to heal at all then they dont have any stored food left. Food caravans could increase a city's healing per turn, and granary should provide extra stored food.

To balance it should mele units from the city be able to attack units even if they are stacked with an archer so they could break the siege. this would make cites something you have to protect and rescue, not doom machines that instant kills the enemy.

I like the idea of isolation and city surrender being an option but it'd fit really badly in Civ's abstract food/population system. The 'fill a box with food points to gain population, keep some of that food with certain buildings, and if people are dying of starvation the only immediate concern is having one less Scientist' system is a daft relic of the first Civ that should have gone out the window along with sliders.

Besides the 'ole stand bye of "Escalade Warfare". That being send in your melee troops with ladders/grapples to go over the walls to attack the city. There is also "Siege Warfare", where your use large engines of war to batter the walls down. I think that Subterfuge should also be added in as an option to take cities.

By subterfuge, In CivRev, you could use spies to lower cities defences, by destroying buildings that gives bonuses to a cities defence. As well as, using spies to lower a unit('s') fortification bonus from "digging in". I love Sabotuers!

Cyon said:

I would like it if they would increase a city's hp, dramatically decrease their attack strength and tie the their ability to heal to the amount of food tiles they can work and reach after the stored foof have run out, ie if you surround all six hexes to a city then they shouldn't be able to heal at all then they dont have any stored food left. Food caravans could increase a city's healing per turn, and granary should provide extra stored food.

To balance it should mele units from the city be able to attack units even if they are stacked with an archer so they could break the siege. this would make cites something you have to protect and rescue, not doom machines that instant kills the enemy.

Click to expand...

I like this. Two units in cities (of different types) won't break the fun of one unit per tile elsewhere (it even addresses my biggest complaint of 2upt proposals where you're pretty much obligated to have a defensive unit protect a ranged unit because it's the city that is protecting the unit here).

For starving a city out to be viable, you'd have to make enemy units deny usage of tiles both under and unoccupied ones next to them. Seriously, I'm not going out to harvest wheat from a field next to a platoon of Landsnechte if I'm not escorted by some blokes with massive swords.

SYKOJAK said:

Besides the 'ole stand bye of "Escalade Warfare". That being send in your melee troops with ladders/grapples to go over the walls to attack the city. There is also "Siege Warfare", where your use large engines of war to batter the walls down. I think that Subterfuge should also be added in as an option to take cities.

By subterfuge, In CivRev, you could use spies to lower cities defences, by destroying buildings that gives bonuses to a cities defence. As well as, using spies to lower a unit('s') fortification bonus from "digging in". I love Sabotuers!

Click to expand...

I love the idea of bringing back spies' active role in the game for this purpose. They've basically been nerfed from BtS.

But I'd like to add that garrisoned units should have a better effect upon sieges. It's nice that I can leave a city empty and not lose it when a warrior just happens to walk into it.. But I think it's wrong that I can have a GDR garrisoned in a city with 1 hp and a warrior or trireme could just walk right in!

I think you should drop the city hp to 0 (at which point it looses its ranged attack for a few turns), and then you have to kill the garrisoned unit before you can capture it. If the garrison flees while the cities defenses are at 0, any unit can just walk in and take it.