Cities are too strong

[poncratias]

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...

 

[Lightzy]

So thinks you, but I think cities are fine in the early eras.

For the modern eras they're way too weak.
You can one-turn capture cities with mechanized inf.. I took over the entire sohnghai (or the 'whatever' civ) empire (second largest in my game) with 5 units of mech inf and a couple of battleships for bombarding

 

[pagh80]

I love it. Finally you have to bring several units and not just one. Its more realistic and require more strategy.
A thing i have dislikes about previous civ games was that the most efficient way to wage a war was to take several cities the first turn, and then basically just overrun your opponent afterwards. Luckily you cant to that anymore.

So thinks you, but I think cities are fine in the early eras.

For the modern eras they're way too weak.
You can one-turn capture cities with mechanized inf.. I took over the entire sohnghai (or the 'whatever' civ) empire (second largest in my game) with 5 units of mech inf and a couple of battleships for bombarding

Yeah i would like to see stronger cities later in the game also.

 

[Yakk]

All cities in Civ5 are defended with troops. These troops lack the logistical ability to travel far from the city itself, so "are the city itself".

A handful of Warriors are enough to raid, but not enough to conquer a full city.

 

[BjoernLars]

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...

The strategy is to bring in Archers. 2 Archers and 1 or 2 Warriors and you should be able to take an Ancient Era city out in about 4 or 5 turns.

Later bring some Catapults as your technology advances.

I do think that the modern day cities are too weak.

 

[Janig]

On king level and under I disagree with Bjoern. I too think that ancient era cities are easy to capture. I guess that this is strategy discussion but anyway 4 warriors is all I ever need.

 

[Beardy Dan]

Don't you think the self-defense of cities is too strong?

Yes. I'd like the cities to start weaker & get a equivalent. boost from garrisoning.

On a related note, anyone got the "He Threw a car at my head" achievement? I see its at 0.1% globaly completed atm

 

[BjoernLars]

On king level and under I disagree with Bjoern. I too think that ancient era cities are easy to capture. I guess that this is strategy discussion but anyway 4 warriors is all I ever need.

I play it safe...

Perhaps the OP's target city was on a hill? Maybe that would give it an extra bonus?

 

[Sonereal]

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...

No it shouldn't. Without siege weapons, archers, and surrounding a city, it should be pretty difficult and using human waves to try to crack the resistance of a city is just poor planning on your part.

 

[jjkrause84]

Cities are (I think) actually balanced really well. They should be (relatively) easy take and get increasingly easier to take as you get better artillery.

The whole idea was to get your army out of cities and into the field fighting.....which is a breath of fresh air (and, for much of history, FAR mroe realistic)

 

[Czacki]

I didn't make it to late game (tanks and stuff) but does it really make cities THAT weak as my friend tells me? He told me capturing cities with hi-tech units is trivial and they pretty much can't defend themselves...

 

[jjkrause84]

In the modern era most cities will fall within a turn or two of you getting your artillery in place.

To me, the cities are onyl defended by national guardsmen.....no match for the full brunt of an enemy army without outside support.

 

[BjoernLars]

I didn't make it to late game (tanks and stuff) but does it really make cities THAT weak as my friend tells me? He told me capturing cities with hi-tech units is trivial and they pretty much can't defend themselves...

Yeah, taking cities in the modern era is pretty easy. By that point 1 or 2 Rocket Artillery will completely wipe out the city defenses in one turn.

 

[Czacki]

That's rather horrible.

 

[Sonereal]

That's rather horrible.

Not really. It just means that realistically, unless urban combat is implemented in some form, battles will have to be fought in the field.

 

[Czacki]

That means whoever is in the offense later on has a great advantage.

May be realistic in terms of modern warfare, but is also annoying. You can't play without a massive army able to stop the invading army = you can't play without war. Not realistic, neutral countries exist and actually in modern times are often more successful than those with armies.

 

[Kaxeon]

If anything, cities are too weak. It's is very easy to conquer the world (apart from the resulting issues with your happiness...)

 

[jjkrause84]

Remember, if the AI put up an even halfway decent defence and counter-attacked you while you are under fire from 1-3 cities as well it would be absolutely crushing.

Good thing the AI doesn't do that...

Upon reflection, the cities could be made a lot more powerful i nthe moder nage and the game would still function well in that regard so....might as well beef'em up!

 

[CrimsonEdge]

The only time cities need a buff are in the modern age. Otherwise, it's about right.

The real problem is the AI not building enough infantry if they are peaceful.

 

[Gozert]

That means whoever is in the offense later on has a great advantage.

May be realistic in terms of modern warfare, but is also annoying. You can't play without a massive army able to stop the invading army = you can't play without war. Not realistic, neutral countries exist and actually in modern times are often more successful than those with armies.

There are quite some bonuses to defending. Combat Strength on your own land is increased by Social Policies in the Tradition and Freedom tree and you heal more per turn on your own ground. You don't need as big as an army to defend, but you do need an army out there. If your military is adequate to defend, the AI is less likely to attack you. You can play peacefully just fine, you just don't have to let your opponent know you're a pushover.