Cities are too strong.

A

aalia_12

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
2
Don't you think the self-defense of cities is too strong?

If I attack a lonely city, not guarded by any army, and march in with 4 full warrior units, i should be able to break the resistance of the civillians with ease and burn the huts to the ground!
But instead my warriors get ripped apart like they are as sissy as they look...
Right now nyou can't do anything if you ain't got a trebuchet or something similar.

That doesn't make sense.

A lonly city with no army nearby should be an easy target for any army that is marching by...

.
 
I have had a situation where an AI plopped down a fresh city on a bit of unused tundra or desert on my continent, and it didn't even have any walls and not a single defender, and it has taken me several turns using a very highly-promoted Rifleman (with canon support) to take out this insignificant little settlement ... in general I'm inclined to agree that cities are slightly too strong, but only because it takes so long to build military units.
 
Yes, I agree. I like that cities defend themselves so I don't always have to have units guarding them, but a few swordsmen should be able to walk right in if there isn't even an army to fight.
Also I think too many people die when cities are taken. Did 1/2 of Paris die when the Nazis marched in?
 
so you want to march 4 warriors up to a city and just be able to take it sounds like you want the game to be to easy.
 
Horizons said:
I have had a situation where an AI plopped down a fresh city on a bit of unused tundra or desert on my continent, and it didn't even have any walls and not a single defender, and it has taken me several turns using a very highly-promoted Rifleman (with canon support) to take out this insignificant little settlement ... in general I'm inclined to agree that cities are slightly too strong, but only because it takes so long to build military units.
Click to expand...

I know this game isnt historically accurate and that they made cities stronger to try an appease the "this game to easy crowd" but..

Urban warfare is crazy, you dont need an army just the citizens with guns or worse rednecks :lol: and taking that city even with no walls will take quite some time.
You have to move house by house to secure the population.

That is how I look at it to add to some immersion, maybe thinking that way can help alleviate some frustration for you. :)
 
cman2010 said:
so you want to march 4 warriors up to a city and just be able to take it sounds like you want the game to be to easy.
Click to expand...
Seriously. I know with mixed spears, horsemen and warriors, you can take a city.

Cities do heal too much with walls up. That's a bit excessive. Not being able to take a capital with four warriors isn't.

Also, I'd like to see some system put in place to limit the number of attacks a "city stack" can make, the "city stack" consisting of the city plus a garrisoned unit. I understand the desire to give an empty city the means of defending itself, but with the current rate of city healing the combination of a city attack plus a untouchable ranged attack is a bit much.
 
Naw its really fine. Its so that you can't just half ass it and you still can take a city with four warriors albeit, they will need some rotating out or attack that small town with 6 strength, its doable for warriors.

I feel like the cities is now at proper strength somewhat.
 
I find the cities just a little too powerful as well but only when looking at the early era's.

Maybe just reduce a cities regeneration rate as it takes on continuous attacks. In doing so this would reflect the damage being done to the city defenses. Reduce regeneration by 1 for each round the city is struck by at least 3 units for example. The rate of regeneration decrease could change based on what defenses are built as well.
 
In the beginning it depends on locations + AI ability to pick who to bombard + if they have an archer or not.

A city built on a hill next to a mountain, with three ocean tiles behind it and a river covering the side the mountain isn't on, will be very hard to capture until Iron working and mathematics is researched, possibly until steel it would be tedious to take the city.
 
City defense makes it impossible to roll the closest civ right out the gate. I usually end up having to take out a bunch of annoying cities of the initial victim to get some breathing room. Even with a couple of catapults plinking away, healing rate and defense is still pretty crazy.

It seems like damage dealt increases on a city as its health gets lower. Is that true? Like decreasing city health to half is a lot harder than decreasing city health from half to 0.
 
I also agree that cities are too powerful. Instead of beefing them the should have fixed the AI, but obviously that will take a long time and this is a band-aid to the problem. So I guess it's needed for now.
 
Maybe cities should be a little weaker, although not much. I think it's good that there is a bit of difficulty involved in taking cities (in comparison to just walking in unopposed). Maybe it could be cut back a little...but it isn't that bad.
 
joyous_gard said:
City defense makes it impossible to roll the closest civ right out the gate. I usually end up having to take out a bunch of annoying cities of the initial victim to get some breathing room. Even with a couple of catapults plinking away, healing rate and defense is still pretty crazy.

It seems like damage dealt increases on a city as its health gets lower. Is that true? Like decreasing city health to half is a lot harder than decreasing city health from half to 0.
Click to expand...

Correct, just like with all units. As a city loses hp, its strength erodes, so it takes more damage, just like when a unit loses hp, its strength erodes, so it takes more damage. That's the whole point of the Japanese UA: they don't lose strength when they take damage.
 
IDK i kind of like the cities as they are now. I mean it's not like their attack is much of a threat or anything.
 
I kind of like how tough cities are now. Basically, they demand either mixed units tactics or overwhelming numbers... As in, you can't go into warfare half arsed and expect to get anything out of it.
 
I really like the change, one of my favorite changes after hexes and natural wonders.

Lot's of things in V could use tweaking and balancing. This could be one of them, but it's hardly a priority.
 
It's not that a city doesn't have any defenders, so much as I believe that the city has militia- which is actually who is bombarding you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
AI devoting too many units to fight hostile city-states
Replies
9
Views
1K
Bison
B
H
Sea beggars are broken?
Replies
16
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
AcaMetis
Nobles' Club 351: Sitting Bull of the Native Americans
Replies
19
Views
1K
Conquistador 63
Conquistador 63
K
[BNW] How many cities is best for Immortal and large maps?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
consentient
consentient
D
Supply System Brainstorm
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
Top Bottom