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.
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.
Do I read "island"? 'Nuff said.
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
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?
You have to wait that long until you're able to take out enemy cities?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.
...at this point in the game...
This statement is both irrelevant and incorrect. You can send me a PM if you want to know why.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.
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).