Cities are too strong.

[Vasire]

In my games current city strength is the only thing that stops AI vs AI onslaught.

In ciV when two AIs start a war they pretty much kick each other for several turns near the border. Then the loosing side of the brawl ends up with almost no army at all. Unlike previous games it doesn't have any reinforcements inside the cities and it can't pop up new units inside 5-6 turns. So the city strength is the only thing that prevents the winning side from steamrolling over it's territory.

 

[Strategist83]

Nope. But, zergling/warrior rushes are next to nonexistent, and even the equivalent of axemen rushes are very hard to pull off. Precisely why I like it

I absolutely agree that the fact that cities are nearly impossible to take pre-classical era is a great thing. Ancient era is/should be about defending your civ from barbarians and the occasional hostile raid/worker steal/pillage from those crazed Aztecs (which, unfortunately, seem to have lost all their 'bite' in Civ5?).

The problem is that it goes beyond this. Following the patch, cities with walls and especially castles heal at an absolutely ludicrous rate, not to mention they inflict a healthy amount of damage now. Even this is somewhat OK, however, because after all, it means the city did spend production on getting up a defense. Still, castled cities require something like three contemporary siege machines to break down because even if they inflict a lot of damage, the city heals almost nearly as fast on the following turn. Even with three trebuchets, expect to take a considerable amount of rounds wearing down the defenses. All the while, the besieged city can easily defend itself by putting just a single siege machine of their own comfortably within the protection of the city hexagon - it will deal so much damage it can practically kill off one of the invading units coupled with the city's own attack each turn. It's a bit much, to put it gently. While the defender should definitely be favored in combat, it is perhaps slightly overboard.

What I've been trying to get at all the time, however, is rather how cities INSTANTLY have a fully functional defense from the very moment they are settled. That is just not right, and it opens the door on so many cheesy things: Running a protected settler up to enemy borders and slapping down a settlement while rushbuying a 'walls', BAM, instant frontline fortress. There should be a penalty time to represent the 'Settler' turning into an actual 'city' which didn't even exist moments before. Once again, I believe cities should be founded with health 'in the red' to prevent this from happening - and rushbuying anything should be disabled for the first 5-10 turns, standard speed.

 

[Meester_henk]

I just love the feature how your own people fight for enemy when you come to liberate your city.

 

[BomberEscort]

The sad part is these new city defense changes are hardcoded and currently not accessable via the XML (1.0.1.167)

 

[aatami]

I think the cities are fine the way they are...

 

[lietkynes]

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...

.

If the city has walls and you don't have siege weapons you will be in trouble. This is historically accurate and makes perfect sense, so just bring more melee units or build some siege/ranged units.

 

[AfterShafter]

I absolutely agree that the fact that cities are nearly impossible to take pre-classical era is a great thing. Ancient era is/should be about defending your civ from barbarians and the occasional hostile raid/worker steal/pillage from those crazed Aztecs (which, unfortunately, seem to have lost all their 'bite' in Civ5?).

The problem is that it goes beyond this. Following the patch, cities with walls and especially castles heal at an absolutely ludicrous rate, not to mention they inflict a healthy amount of damage now. Even this is somewhat OK, however, because after all, it means the city did spend production on getting up a defense. Still, castled cities require something like three contemporary siege machines to break down because even if they inflict a lot of damage, the city heals almost nearly as fast on the following turn. Even with three trebuchets, expect to take a considerable amount of rounds wearing down the defenses. All the while, the besieged city can easily defend itself by putting just a single siege machine of their own comfortably within the protection of the city hexagon - it will deal so much damage it can practically kill off one of the invading units coupled with the city's own attack each turn. It's a bit much, to put it gently. While the defender should definitely be favored in combat, it is perhaps slightly overboard.

What I've been trying to get at all the time, however, is rather how cities INSTANTLY have a fully functional defense from the very moment they are settled. That is just not right, and it opens the door on so many cheesy things: Running a protected settler up to enemy borders and slapping down a settlement while rushbuying a 'walls', BAM, instant frontline fortress. There should be a penalty time to represent the 'Settler' turning into an actual 'city' which didn't even exist moments before. Once again, I believe cities should be founded with health 'in the red' to prevent this from happening - and rushbuying anything should be disabled for the first 5-10 turns, standard speed.

The thing is, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with being able to create a beachhead this way. The beachhead itself has zero offensive ability in an attacking the enemy civilization sense - all that money spend rushbuying walls/castle gives you a launching point for an attack, but that attack will invariably have to enter enemy borders and be stuck facing formidable cities without the help of their beachhead. Really, you talk about this whole establish a city beachhead thing but fail to mention anything wrong with such a practice. What's your beef with it? My problem with weak cities leading to single unit rushes is that it's simple, requires little thought, and leads to one dimensional gameplay. What's wrong with defensively formidable cities being used as beachheads?

What's more, this high defense places more emphasis on pillaging runs rather than attacks meant to wipe out enemy cities. It's all good and fine if an enemy is walled to the gills with siege units defending cities and has a virtually impenetrable fortress of a civilization - so, rather than smashing your head against the wall, turn those cities into paperweights from a productive/progressive standpoint. Pillage their lands until their cities starve, their production goes down the toilet, and your civ slowly but surely pulls well ahead of your turtling opponent.

Or, heaven forbid someone has to get downright clever to take a city. Send a small pillaging force to the east side of the opponent's empire with a three siege four longsword force to the west at a distance so it goes undisturbed. Pillage for 5 or 10 turns drawing attention - and forces - to the east side, then drop in for a three or four turn sack of a city on the west.

If cities aren't such monolithic things to take down, all one needs to do is build siege, build longswords, utilize rough terrain, and march in - boom, city down. Or heck, just a bunch of a single infantry unit. As it stands, one might actually have to think a bit to mount an effective offense VS an enemy. Heaven forbid!

 

[Smote]

Well, actually you can (and I do) attack with cities. Build 2-3 cities 3 hexes from enemy capital. Shoot any workers that try to work his land Place archers in cities for added effect.

 

[AfterShafter]

Well, if you find yourself in a position where you can build *three* cities directly beside the enemy capital without any effective response, I think it's pretty safe to say you deserve your win

 

[Bibor]

Even with three trebuchets, expect to take a considerable amount of rounds wearing down the defenses. All the while, the besieged city can easily defend itself by putting just a single siege machine of their own comfortably within the protection of the city hexagon - it will deal so much damage it can practically kill off one of the invading units coupled with the city's own attack each turn. It's a bit much, to put it gently. While the defender should definitely be favored in combat, it is perhaps slightly overboard.

Castle is a serious investment. Takes at least 15, usually 20 turns to build in a well-established city. Frontier cities are rarely established. Attackers not being able to take cities with castles is historically very accurate. Constantinople fell with the introduction of cannons, whitstanding a thousand years of traditional siege warfare. With 2-3 longswords and 2-3 trebuchets attacking simultaneously, a castle will fall in 3 or 4 turns. That's not counting defenders. The trick is to attack with lonswords as well, not just siege.[/QUOTE]

Running a protected settler up to enemy borders and slapping down a settlement while rushbuying a 'walls', BAM, instant frontline fortress. There should be a penalty time to represent the 'Settler' turning into an actual 'city' which didn't even exist moments before.

Founding a new city equals extra 3 , one city didn't grow while building it, minus 500 for rushbuying walls, while providing, what, 16 defense (pop 1 city)? Provided that you actually have room for planting the city, its hardly worth it.

 

[Howard Mahler]

Historically cities have both been conquered and successfully resisted being conquered.
This is true across eras.
Therefore, it would make sense for the same to be true in Civilization.

There is a range of reasonable strengths for cities for which this will be true.
Reasonable people may differ as to where in that range of reasonableness would be ideal.

With one unit per tile, you can have at most one explicit defender in the city.
Thus in order to be in the range of reasonableness probably requires that a city have an inherent defense in Civilization V.
With appropriate adjustments a city having an inherent defense would have probably worked in Civilization IV as well.

The inherent city defense represents the militia, a small garrison, anti-seige equipment, etc.
The difference between civilians and professional soldiers was not that great in many eras and cultures.

It would make sense for the strength of this inherent defense to depend on city population, buildings such as wall, castle, etc., tech level, etc.

It makes sense for capitals to have an inherent defensive advantage. The leader would keep a larger garrison in his capital, better equipment, etc.

I think a city upon being built should start with a relatively low inherent defense, with perhaps as some people have suggested that defense improving somewhat automatically over time.

As for the particular example in the original post, 4 warrior units (units each made up of an unknown number of warriors.) This is apparently at a time in the game when this is a very large army at close to the top technology level. In that case, I believe there should be a reasonable chance of taking a city that has no explicit defender.

It is at least possible that the designers have made it too hard at that particular point in the game to take such a city. Anybody who would have made the same reply to the original post if the inherent city defense had been 10 times as great are not helping the discussion.

 

[JohnnyW]

It would make sense for the strength of this inherent defense to depend on city population, buildings such as wall, castle, etc., tech level, etc.

I've been thinking that this should have a larger influence, along with defensive buildings obviously. I don't think a town of population "1" built from 1 "settler unit" should be able to defend itself against 4 "warrior units" when the "settler unit" would die without leaving a scratch on the enemy prior to settling.

I use quotes only to show the abstractions.

Now, I'm not saying that a warrior should be able to take a city as its founded, but I think that maybe starting defense should be lowered and defense/pop should be raised.

 

[qwerty25]

Why not just give it a 15 turn delay for the city to use bombard or have fortifications. While cities are generally strong, that didn't mean there wasn't any defenders in the city. If your going to make a city, protect it with troops. (The delay should change according to speed of game or other factors.)

 

[Camikaze]

I'd prefer tying it more heavily to population than adding in a delay. A delay is arbitrary. Population actually means something, and covers all situations.

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Seriously, in my yesterday OCC play, my city was 81 DEF, with EVERYTHING and 28 pop.

Then some drops a city and it is like 22 from the start and 43 within 20 turns?

I look around the world, and most cities are 50-60, a few over 70 :gasp:

With ALL my buildings and wonders, I'm "just" above generic cities?

Fanciful.

 

[Babri]

The only problem with the City Defence is that they heal too fast which makes it TOO DIFFICULT to conquer (especially in early eras).

 

[ElWanderer]

I don't think a town of population "1" built from 1 "settler unit" should be able to defend itself against 4 "warrior units" when the "settler unit" would die without leaving a scratch on the enemy prior to settling.

*inserts tongue in cheek*
You're right, settlers should have a base strength of at least ten, and the ability to shoot things two squares away. That'll save the AI from having to worry about escorting them.

Anyway...

Traditionally in Civ, a 1-pop "city" is actually a village with a population of 1000, possibly with a small earth bank/ditch and a wooden palisade - enough to deter raids but not a concerted military attack. Now gameplay trumps realism, but I dislike the instant fortress (with guns!) intensely.

Zerg rushes are cheap and not very, erm, civilised... but the possibility of being on the receiving end of one keeps a builder/rapid expander honest i.e. forces them to spend at least some time and effort considering defence. City spamming without a military to garrison the new settlements should be risky.

 

[migkillertwo]

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 think the point of cities defending themselves is that citizens also function as a militia

 

[JBConquests]

I like city strengths just the way they are. However, I would be in favor of modifying the rules such that brand new cities start with 0 HP and have to "heal" over a number of turns to get to full strength. In reality this would reflect the time it takes to build fortifications, get established, etc... This would make the game more fun because we would be concerned with protecting our new weak city from Barbarians, etc...

 

[cman2010]

To all the people complaining about city streingth what do you want the citys to be made out of cardboard? it should be a blood bath to take a city.