1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Cities are WAY too difficult to conquer now.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by abone734, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. neilkaz

    neilkaz King

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    980
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    Some experience from an early era in my game. Standard speed Immortal Small Pangaea as usual.

    Yes, cities are harder to take but certainly still possible at least when it is early. This from turns in the 70's to 80 out of 500.

    Bursa was strength 7 and it fell and Edirne was strength 8 and it also fell to my 3CC, 1 archer (scout upgrade) a gifted chariot along with a GG.

    It took two turns of attacking to take each city, but for Bursa, only bcuz I attacked it before my newly created CC was on site.

    Pre patch, both cities would have fallen during the initial attack wave. The healing between turns was more, but certainly not all that much.

    From what I am reading here I am going to experience far more difficulties taking cities with walls later on. Also Sully has had some defensive units around, so I had to slaughter them as well, Swordsmen, Archers, Warriors and there've been a few barbs bothering him more than me on that front.

    In summary, at least from my experiences early game here, early cities are harder to take, but not outragiously so, however, I am aided by having strength 12 CC's rather than strength 10 horsemen.

    Later I'll post more about what will hopefully be success vs his 11 strength capital after I heal a couple of turns.

    EDIT: OK taking his strength 11 capital with this force took 3 turns, although he had some a couple defensive units to deal with. It also took 3 turns with 3 CC a Chariot and a GG to take his rebuilt 11 strength city and his 8 strength city almost fell after 1 turn.

    Sully is gone and I have what has to be 40% of the world to myself with a large bulb of the Pangaea and only a 1 tile choke point to get to me..ie death for an AI that tries. It is turn 132 now and I've moved a big army near Ghandi and Wu and will play the game from here a few times to see what I can do by attacking their stronger cities and report back in a new post tomorrow. It is probably easier for me to win this game just by making new cities in my land while not getting too unhappy and allying with several more CS, but I want to see what happens trying to take stronger cities with my cats/CC/Chariots and X-bows.

    I suspect that while it would be trivial to blow Ghandi of the board post patch (weaker than Wu) I may find that I can barely harm his cities now.

    .. neilkaz ..
     
  2. nokmirt

    nokmirt Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    5,088
    Location:
    Iowa USA
    That is not true I took two cities last night, and it was a battle but more realistic.
     
  3. Mahatmajon

    Mahatmajon Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Messages:
    304
    Location:
    Chicagoland, USA
    Y'all should tell Nappy in my game about cities being hard to take (Emperor or Immortal (not sure what I chose), Quick speed to check out the new patch)

    I just conquered his empire (~6-7 ICS style cities) with 4 longbowmen, 1 pikeman, 1 catapult (citystate gift), & a great general. Longbowmen would do 1-3 per shot per turn, catapult 2-3 & pikemen would walk in when it was ready. Small cities fell in ~2 turns. Paris was a strength 15-20 (should have paid attention) and was quite a bit harder. I ended up getting iron by then and brought in swordsmen, but I'm sure I could have taken Paris without it (eventually) with 4 bowman + catapult + GG.
     
  4. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    It bothered me that by the time I set up my siege units I was ready to move on to the next city, having already used archers. Also I would have never considered using the siege promotion and didn't bother with medic because they just weren't necessary.
     
  5. pickle

    pickle Lord of the Preserves

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    236
    Location:
    Aotearoa
    I haven't had much trouble at all taking cities, well once they get walls and the +1 healing it takes a lot longer but managed to take a city with 2 swords and 2 triremes bombarding and a catapauld came in for the final turn too. the only units I have lost so far were a trireme that got done by city plus crossbow and a longsword that got picked off crossing some water
     
  6. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,182
    Location:
    STL
    I think they went too far with how difficult they made it to take cities. They needed to do something, but the significant horse archer nerf, along with the cities improved defenses and health regeneration, it's become too hard to take cities. You can still take them, but it's tougher than it should be, especially before you catapults. I don't even really know what the point of building horse archers is now. Let's face it, most battles in Civ are over cities, so if a unit is horrible against a city, don't really want to waste my hammers on them. Yeah, they can pillage, but for how expensive they are, that's not really worth it.
     
  7. Bob1475

    Bob1475 Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Yardley, PA
    Cities can be taken, I took at least 40 in my first game (continents, Prince level). However, as noted by others you better bring mixed arms and be prepared for a siege. I find warfare more balanced now.
     
  8. Wulf38

    Wulf38 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    228
    Unguarded cities are still easy enough to take. As I see it, the problem is that siege units are far too strong defensively, especially when firing from inside a city where they can't be counter-attacked (see this thread). You could argue this is good because it makes conquest harder, but that cuts both ways. A human will never lose a city to the AI as long as they have an up-to-date siege unit at the border.
     
  9. Namel

    Namel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    55
    I like the change. It just requires new tactics. Archers are now pretty much useless at taking cities and horsemen are pretty bad too. With swordmen I had no problems. If I plan to conquer the world maybe I now actually build barracks, take honor etc. that will improve my units. Earlier it was not necessary. Also value of civilizations that have some trait to improve their army went up a lot. If you have problems try playing chinese with their better generals or japanese or even mongols.

    I am trying mongols and their horse archers that replace knights seem truly good. They have no penalty against cities so I can just send my horde of them to shoot city, move out of range after shooting so they don't get hurt and do that until city is down.
     
  10. stormerne

    stormerne is just a Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the United States
    So let's see if I've got this right from the thread so far. Please correct me if I've wrong...
    • Cities are more difficult to take, but...
    • ...you can still take cities with enough of the right units, if you can handle an attack well (human advantage vs. AI) and/or you do it early enough.
    • Seige units are stronger against cities but weaker in defending themselves, but...
    • ...units nerfed against cities haven't lost their ordinary strength against other units, and can be used to counterattack while aggressively defending.
    So... doesn't that mean that your cities are much more difficult to take by the AI (when playing SP) provided you keep a strong defensive force whose aim is to attack units rather than cities? Therefore, isn't it now easier to pursue strategies that aim for non-domination victories because you'll have the breathing space to do so?

    Please help me to understand the flaws in this reasoning (other than that's probably what Firaxis want me to think!).
     
  11. AfterShafter

    AfterShafter Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    World's largest lentil producer
    Storm, that's actually the benefit of the whole thing that I've been mulling over. While it is true they have nerfed offensive warfare to a great degree in the early game, simply put, defensive warfare is more imposing as a result.

    I get the feeling, unless they change things (and some things could use some ironing, though I do like the direction it's going), you'll have to focus a lot more explicitly on offensive warfare in order to succeed while you can almost effortlessly defend your cities. Though I think a lot of mechanics and cost balances don't favour builders/pacifists, this change does make it a lot easier to pursue pacifist ends without being in constant fear of invaders.
     
  12. Celevin

    Celevin King

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    919
    You almost rely on iron to take cities now. Not only that, but for a good city-taking force you need it for your melee and your bombardments. That combination makes it hard to create any good city-taking force.

    Try bombarding with archers, or try taking a city without ranged units at all. You can do it, but it's only because the AI doesn't defend itself with its own units well.
     
  13. stormerne

    stormerne is just a Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2001
    Messages:
    3,428
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    the United States
    @AfterShafter: Yes that's my feeling too. I'm not sure about the old strategy about rushing your neighbor at the start to get more land to expand, but it seems to me that you can use your time, gold and hammers to go for other victories behind your lines. And the fact there are better upgrade paths, and that you still need to upgrade while on friendly soil, does point to there being a deliberate push in this direction - despite, as you say, there being some imbalances.

    @Celevin: Thanks for that. I'm sure you're right, but I think my hypothesis is that since the stronger cities cut both ways, you have more room to do other things as well now. I think this is especially so as the AI will be hopeless at the new required city attack strategies and won't learn how to, whereas humans can discuss things on forums and work out the best ways!
     
  14. CGG1066

    CGG1066 Minister of Finance

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2010
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    California
    I like the change. I see where you're coming from - I was a whole tech up (riflemen, cannons, and frigates v. long-swordsmen) going after Babylon (with their special walls). Oh - and they had the Kremlin.

    But honestly, it made the game fun. And that's what counts.
     
  15. Malkaviel

    Malkaviel Prince

    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Messages:
    338
    Simply, you need a sufficient force to take cities now. It's fine by my experience.

    Messing around with king difficulty just to see the changes from the patch. Playing as England with 3 longbows, 3 trebs and 4 longswords, I wtfpwnd neighboring Japan's 7 cities over @35 turns circa 900AD, so yes he had quite a few samurai, just had trouble maneuvering through a lake/mountain/hill chokepoint i exploited. Actually, I beelined his Kyoto first and that was probably more than half the turns, burning him down, and after that he was broken; the rest just fell.

    I didn't notice his cities, even with walls, healing up same turn completely after I'd start my longbow attacks, and certainly not the trebs. Think that was hyperbole by the OP. Yes it's only a little more difficult; about where it should be.

    Also iron isn't required. I also did well with a small horde of 8 pikemen and 4 crossbows as France against Alexander, but he didn't have civil service yet, so.. was an attrition fight with my pikemen edge.
     
  16. Manifold

    Manifold ModderProtectionAdvocate

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,580
    i agree with abone734

    the main problem now is, that on smaller maps there is offen not enough place for units to conquer the city. The only way to do this is a Wave of meat, but the AI wont do this and wont conquer a well-placed city anyway. Their units just move arround waiting for their dead.

    Solution: Gameoption with turn on/of better defended cities
     
  17. JLoZeppeli

    JLoZeppeli Prince

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    Way better now. Conquering with four horseman a Civ was boring and unchallanging...
     
  18. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    Navy ;)
     
  19. Manifold

    Manifold ModderProtectionAdvocate

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,580
    this means that you have enough place for four attacks a turn. also the enemy has no standing army with spearmens any more, so why not conquering the city with four horsemens?

    on standard and small maps four horsemen in the beginning is not so bad, especially when the enemy has no standing army any more.

    @Slowpoke

    AI < navy
     
  20. CTH

    CTH Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    Göteborg, Sweden
    I like that cities is harder to take, but I think that they heal a bit to quickly now, a long siege is cool but you should be able to take it if you bomb it enough. And I also think it is wrong that the AI cheats and can move units the turn they buy them, can really mess up an attack
     

Share This Page