Cities are too strong.

[lschnarch]

Example of militia holding off army:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sullivan's_Island


Such instances are rare. Usually its more of a guerilla action.

Do I read "island"? 'Nuff said.

 

[Smote]

Do I read "island"? 'Nuff said.

 

[ElWanderer]

Do I read "island"? 'Nuff said.

Interesting read though. Makes a change from all the bloody sieges I've been reading about today!

 

[masonryan]

I agree heck why not have it where the citys are able to be taken with just 2 warriors since they should not have any defenses of they have not built a wall, come on people citys should be hard to take my problem with civ 5 is I thought they were to easy to take which makes for a boring game.

 

[ElWanderer]

my problem with civ 5 is I thought they were to easy to take which makes for a boring game.

(assuming you mean a single-player game) Is that not because the AI is almost completely unable to defend itself, though? I don't think making up for the inability of the AI by turning cities into magic missile armed super-fortresses will make it any more fun - I certainly didn't enjoy slowly trundling through empty city after empty city at a snail's pace (mostly the result of terrain) after wiping out the AI's "army" in my last game. Even more powerful cities would have made it slower, but not any more interesting

 

[esemjay]

(assuming you mean a single-player game) Is that not because the AI is almost completely unable to defend itself, though? I don't think making up for the inability of the AI by turning cities into magic missile armed super-fortresses will make it any more fun - I certainly didn't enjoy slowly trundling through empty city after empty city at a snail's pace (mostly the result of terrain) after wiping out the AI's "army" in my last game. Even more powerful cities would have made it slower, but not any more interesting

I spam Stealth Bombers and Paratroopers to counter the issue at this point in the game. It's even better if you ALSO have rocket-artillery with +1 attack and +1 range.

 

[lschnarch]

I spam Stealth Bombers and Paratroopers to counter the issue at this point in the game. It's even better if you ALSO have rocket-artillery with +1 attack and +1 range.

You have to wait that long until you're able to take out enemy cities?

 

[masonryan]

You have to wait that long until you're able to take out enemy cities?

trust me thats the least of this guys problems he puts everything about his game on a spreadsheet and animates it the guys crazy.
Moderator Action: Trolling other people and discussing them is not allowed here.

 

[esemjay]

I spam Stealth Bombers and Paratroopers to counter the issue at this point in the game. It's even better if you ALSO have rocket-artillery with +1 attack and +1 range.

You have to wait that long until you're able to take out enemy cities?

...at this point in the game...

I don't have an issue taking cities; I really don't see them as overpowered. Their strength can be a bit over the top- but I show up with a lot of troops to counter this in the early game. Once you can spam Stealth Bombers, you can take a city with bombers and paratroopers. Stealth Bombers have a long enough range to use your navy as spotters for bombardment in a lot of cases, as well.

 

[esemjay]

trust me thats the least of this guys problems he puts everything about his game on a spreadsheet and animates it the guys crazy.

This statement is both irrelevant and incorrect. You can send me a PM if you want to know why.

 

[masonryan]

This statement is both irrelevant and incorrect. You can send me a PM if you want to know why.

your statement is incorrect you posted the file in another thread, and braged about it.
heres the link
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=408810&page=12

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: This discussion stops now. Discuss the content, not the posters.

 

[The Brute Squad]

History as teacher, some towns and cities fall without conflict at all, just the threat of force. This might be the historical majority.

I think that seige resolutions should be a function relating army proximity and size to city size. The bigger the city (or more culture or whatever), the more, if you will, "resolve." The bigger the army size, the less resolve. At a certain point, resolve breaks.

In a partially randomized ratio, the city mayor should simply hand over the keys, if there are no garrisoned troops to spur the locals into defense.

This would also make bloodless seiges, even respectful, non-pillaging seiges viable. Just stand around the city and look menacing enough for long enough with enough buddies... and the locals might (or might not) be impressed enough to lose their resolve. Issue lots of ultimatums and pound your fist angrily.

Of course, I'm not going to give any numbers for the balance of this. I'm just here to kick a hive.

How many massing zerglings outside would it take, as a new settler, to bloodlessly hand over the keys to the new digs and frantically begin learning a new language?

How long would one wait, as commander, for a city to be convinced ad bacculum before you make good on it?

Would the razing of one resistant city make other cities more amenicable in negotiation? Or less?

Hrm. Meh, maybe something to stick in a realism mod.

Yay! First post by the way.

 

[de Maistre]

It may be in need of tweaking, but the basic idea is good; cities shouldn't be easy to take.

 

[Genymene]

I am a new Civ player and I don't think cities are too hard to take. Any leader which comes with early special units can take cities down no problem. A good example is MadDjinn doing the Darius videos on deity.

Also, leaders who don't have special units early can still take down cities with iron working which isn't exactly far into the future.

 

[NukeAJS]

City healing is more an issue than city strength. I agree with the most recent patch that +1 HP was too slow, but +4 HP is too high. Two units attacking a city should be able to deal more than 1-2 HP of damage (after city-healing.)

Also, cities can deal, imo, too much damage to attacking units. Sometimes a city will deal 8HP damage to a unit then kill it with its attack. As someone mentioned before, this wouldn't be that much of an issue if units were cheaper, but units are too valuable to just get "one-shotted" by a lone, undefended city.

 

[JoeBas]

I play on Prince difficulty so if anyone plays on a greater difficulty, I can't say that this will work...

But personally I find taking cities is...well easy. Here's what I do to take a city (this is assuming there aren't any troops lurking nearby the city, that makes it more challenging and requires more units).

I typically need 2 - 3 melee units (units that must march onto the hex the city inhabits) and about 2 ranged units.

I have taken a city with 3 warriors and 2 archers before with almost no problem.

First, and this is really important, I tell me 2 ranged units to first fire on the city. It seems a wounded city is easier to take, and deals less damage to units as it gets weaker (the damage seems to be lesser ONLY to melee counterattacks).

Then, all I do is send the 2 - 3 melee in to attack the city. The city will usually focus on one of the melee's, lowering it's health approximately 25 - 33% with a single attack. When one of my melee's is lowered to 50% or less, I simply tell them to rest until healed. This buys me some time (they may be killed, but usually are left @ near death) while I attack with the other units.

In about 2, perhaps 3 turns at most, the city is mine. No problem!

I feel this is fair, and it makes sense. Cities are hard to capture, and they should be. A 5 unit army is not unreasonable imo to take a city.

If your enemy has 2 or 3 cities in a row you want to take, up your army size by 1 range and add an additional 1.5 melee per city (so +1 melee for 2 cities, +3 for 3 cities). By this time, you will notice your troops are pretty weakened. You'll need to rest if you want to continue (or simply build larger armies).

This.

Generally when I want to go a'conquering early in the game, I set up an "A" squad and a "B" squad with 3 melees and 2 ranged units each - both archers if it's EARLY early, or an archer/cat mix if it's later. Archers are promoted from my early barbie-hunting squad (1 archer & 1 melee each, usually 2 squads, and the archer is usually a "Fast archer"/ruins-upgrade-popped scout) and have city attack already pre-upgraded. Couple of turns of pounding and the city is mine, though most units have lost HP, and need to rest. That's not a problem, "A" squad heals up in/near the new puppet (one melee unit with the heal promotion) while B squad jumps to the next in line. Rinse and repeat, as necessary.

In my current game this weekend (Iroquois), I took down Beijing, on a hill, with a wall, a Cho-Ko-Nu, AND a pikeman, with 2 crossbows, 2 swords, a Mohawk Warrior (no forests nearby) and a couple of knights for ranged fire bait (positioning of Beijing was against mountains/water so there were only 3 approach hexes for my attackers). Took it in 2 turns, did lose a couple of units, but you should expect to there.

Now, since the patch, I haven't tried this with warriors, I'll admit, so maybe it's not salient to the OP point of "Warrior rushes" not working. But I've done it with spears and swords... seems like it's asking a LOT of a "Civilization" game to be mad that your caveman can't club a baby seal like he used to...