Archers in cities on hills

[GIO888]

CATAPAULTS!

Take 3 Catapaults with collateral damage promotion 1 and two swordsmen with city raider 1, with 0% defenses you will take down any city with 2 archer defenders in one attack, and 3 or 4 defenders in two - nearly every time.

Ranged Artillery Matey! That's what you need!

 

[Supr49er]

Don't you?

For my secondary cities I will try to. But it seems hills are always 2+ moves away when I start.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Except there is a long gap between melee units going obsolete and the arrival of tanks. Then you have nothing except siege units which can get the CR promotions. (Yes, its nice if you have old CR melee you can upgrade, but you can't count on basing your whole strategy around that).

But you can base your whole strategy around Siege. Riflemen, Infantry, etc. are just there for stack defense, mop up, and reinforcing your new city

 

[kniteowl]

Oh "Archer class" units, and terrorist spies in consecutive threads. I'm in pet peeve heaven (or hell)

A CGII Longbow, fortified on a hill city with ZERO defence, has a winning chance of 40.8% vs a combat I Rifle....

Against an Rifleman!

Archers and Longbows were evidently originally designed, so that cities were easy to defend for a "builder" player, who wanted to keep a smaller army. Imo opinion, this was way over the top for hill cities from the start, and this has been exacberated be Protective civs, and many game changes.

A CGII (which is a very basic barracks built, one barb earned promotion) Archer, sitting fortified for 5 turns on a city / hill with 30% culture def, has his basic str of 3 PLUS 200%. That makes him better than a CRI Maceman. A CGII longbow in the same situation but with a rather basic by that time 40% culture def, will completely outclass a Rifleman (he'll win 74.3% of the time), and will beat an Infantry almost 3 out of 10 times.

An Infantry!

Don't misunderstand me, Im quite a defensive player, and use all this to my advantage too.

Doesn't make it right..............

LOL I guess not but I think the game is fine the way it is especially into you also the collateral damage of Siege units, maybe we should give Archery units a 25% disadvantage vs gunpowder units (except Muskets) if it's still that bad.

 

[MrFrodo]

Quechas, A Lot, FTW!

I think I did this the other day, but I can't remember if it was on a hill or not. It was against a protective leader so they all had city defense I and drill I. My Quechas were mostly from a Barracks so they had Combat 1 + Archery +25% (total vs. archers 125%).

I think my first one attacked with a combat success chance of 4.6%? It wasn't pretty but once those first strikes went by, when my Quchas got that club moving in close they eventually could wear them down! I think I lost 7/10 of my early rush Qeuchas against 2 archers....but it was worth it!

 

[GrandWazoo]

I quickly realized that you never have too many artilleries. Build as many as you can, you basically only need the other units to guard the artillery, mop their damage and guard cities. Sent them all to attack first but expect to lose two or three of them for each cities, which is why you need to keep producing them. On the flip side, you'll never lose a regular unit. It is insanely powerful.

 

[Infantry#14]

^^you should put them in separate stacks. 4-5 flanking horse archers can kill all the siege units.

 

[GrandWazoo]

Yeah but that is true for any stacks anyway, you're always better splitting them, if only to prevent collateral damage.