City conquering: too hard?

[Tonas1997]

Hi! For starters, I should mention I don't have that much experience with VP yet, and neither do I have a complete (or, at least, substantial) understanding of balancing issues that come with this or that change. This means my following suggestions may come across as downright ridiculous to more experienced players.

Basically, I've been thinking about how VP (and CPP) makes the game harder for domination victories. The AI is way smarter than in vanilla; its armies are more diverse, its cities are well defended, and they seem much better at combined arms warfare. Which is a good thing! Ever since I changed to VP, I've had the notion my own military failures are due to other players' better decisions and their general playstyle, in oposittion to vanilla where I always had the impression of being "cheated on" through the AI's ridiculous bonuses.

However, and this is a personal opinion, I feel cities are way too hard to conquer. To me, I doesn't make much sense than an ungarrisonned city should be able to put up a fight against 3-4 sieging divisions* - regardless of defensive points awarded by buildings - which sometimes ends up stalling an entire war.

* I refer to in-game military units as "divisions". Why? Because screw you, that's why!

Therefore, I came up with a couple of suggestions that aim to improve the whole "capturing" shebang:

• City defense should be much more dependent on its garrison. While buildings would still provide some defensive bonuses, the battle should be ultimately decided by whichever unit is guarding the city. I've seen my unguarded capital with 98 defense jump to a miserable 113 - or something like that - just by moving in a mechanized infantry division. It should make a much larger difference, IMO, to have a powerful unit guarding a city vs. not having a garrison at all. Not by increasing the garrisoned defense, but by severely decreasing the ungarrisonned defensive points.
• This logic would apply only to melee units; ranged attacks should remain as they are.
• City ranged attacks would also be significantly nerfed if said city is ungarrisonned.
• Obviously, the above points don't incur in the idea that conquering a late-game, ungarrisonned city should be a cakewalk either. There could be other factors that aimed to simulate civil resistance, thereby giving those cities a fighting chance (in order of importance):

1. City happiness/warscore
2. Population
3. Buildings
4. Production
5. Policies
6. Terrain

From my understanding, even the base game implements some of the features I suggested above (city strength affected by population, for example), but the improved AI definitely changed the warfare dynamics of the game. What do you all think about the whole deal?

 

[tu_79]

Your premise is wrong. Cities are not that hard to conquer. Capitals, maybe.

Use melee, siege and surround the city so it can't heal.

 

[Minh Le]

Imo cities are easy enough to capture. We dont need to make it even easier.

 

[Moi Magnus]

I don't really feel like cities are too hard to capture.

Though the main difference with vanilla is that to effectively siege a city, you should circle the city with units (preferably melee units, because they have better survavibility). I don't remember what is the exact bonus for circling the city, but it helps.

So with few siege/ranged units, plus 6+ melee units to circle the city, it is not that hard. (A navy is advised too against coastal cities)

Unless new defensive building just have been unlocked and build, in that case, the war will be long.

 

[civplayer33]

I don't remember what is the exact bonus for circling the city, but it helps.

Yeah, it gives you a 20% bonus and prevents the city from healing if you surround it.

 

[andersw]

Hi! For starters, I should mention I don't have that much experience with VP yet, and neither do I have a complete (or, at least, substantial) understanding of balancing issues that come with this or that change. This means my following suggestions may come across as downright ridiculous to more experienced players.

Basically, I've been thinking about how VP (and CPP) makes the game harder for domination victories. The AI is way smarter than in vanilla; its armies are more diverse, its cities are well defended, and they seem much better at combined arms warfare. Which is a good thing! Ever since I changed to VP, I've had the notion my own military failures are due to other players' better decisions and their general playstyle, in oposittion to vanilla where I always had the impression of being "cheated on" through the AI's ridiculous bonuses.

However, and this is a personal opinion, I feel cities are way too hard to conquer. To me, I doesn't make much sense than an ungarrisonned city should be able to put up a fight against 3-4 sieging divisions* - regardless of defensive points awarded by buildings - which sometimes ends up stalling an entire war.

Some cities are very hard to conquer but far from all.
Usually you need to grind down enemy units around the area to surround enemey city or just put up enough siege in safe locations.

With that said a for example Spanish city in awkward terrain where you can't fit more than one or two siege is a horrible horrible city to conquer and can take forever.

Ie some terrain makes it very hard to take cities and some civs are notorious in very fast building walls/castles (spain faith buys op castles).

There are also religious choices which increase defense that makes combat in general slower, god of protection, defender of the faith for example.

Since terrain and resources around capital have a bias depending on the civ, some civs get way better defensive terrain than others.

I feel there is a HUGE difference between various civs in how much defense they have in their cities.

Easiest way to deal with those near impossible locations imo is:
Go extremely early horseman rush (on lower difficulties) or wait until you have field guns for indirect fire.
There is of course the option to play less agressive also.

 

[Leondegrance]

The problem is not capturing cities. The problem is capturing cities. You know what I am saying...

 

[Stalker0]

I'll echo the group here. To the OP, as you said you are still new to the game. There is a lot to learn!

Military is a very different ballgame from regular Vanilla, but once you get the hang of it, you will find city capturing a lot less daunting. I don't think we need to make any major changes to city capturing at this time.

I feel like this is an area where new player education is important, more so than formal balance changes.

 

[Owlbebach]

With that said a for example Spanish city in awkward terrain where you can't fit more than one or two siege is a horrible horrible city to conquer and can take forever.

Deity trick: stop beating your head against the wall

 

[Leondegrance]

Deity trick: stop beating your head against the wall

I second that. Here is my interpretation of deity at this moment. It may change but

Deity is sort of for people who not only have full expertise on the game, but also who have achieved almost everything in this game. And it is just the ultimate thing left to do because anything else feels utterly boring to them. I mean they have achieved everything game-wise.

But if you are, for example like me, someone who has a lot to explore and enjoy the role-playing aspect, then deity is going to be game-breaking to you. You will likely not do a single wonder, not settle the way you like, will not be able to do role-play basically. You know sometimes you want to just sit back and relax and enjoy the game at your leisure and even do some crazy stuff which is unthinkable at deity.

 

[tu_79]

The game is balanced around Emperor. It is a nice difficulty for those that have already learned the game, but are not comfortable doing tricks. I still prefer playing in king, as it is more forgiving while engaging.

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

Before field guns, a citiy surrounded by wooded hills is a nightmare to take.
Othe that that, cities are fine.

 

[Leondegrance]

The game is balanced around Emperor. It is a nice difficulty for those that have already learned the game, but are not comfortable doing tricks. I still prefer playing in king, as it is more forgiving while engaging.

Probably and as you said even going to lower than this can be good fun. You know those wonder races are not easy.

I dislike when the AI starts with 2 scouts or pathfinders rather. They leave no ruins to me. 2 is unfair but I guess is good reason behind. Maybe the AI doesn't know how to seek ruins efficiently, though neither do I it is rng, but at least I have a clue from experience where a possible ruin could be. Maybe the AI doesn't have this human experience memory and is needed to start with 2 in order to compensate. Not sure, just my theory. Or maybe has to do with the barbarians.

 

[tu_79]

Probably and as you said even going to lower than this can be good fun. You know those wonder races are not easy.

I dislike when the AI starts with 2 scouts or pathfinders rather. They leave no ruins to me. 2 is unfair but I guess is good reason behind. Maybe the AI doesn't know how to seek ruins efficintly, though neither do I it is rng, but at least I have a clue from experience where a possuble ruin could be. Maybe the AI doesn't have this human experience memory and is needed to start with 2 in order to compensate. Not sure, just my theory. Or maybe has to with the barbarians.

This is the reason why we start with a Pathfinder instead of a warrior. Even deity players might be able to find one or two ancient huts. But deity players need to dedicate the Pathfinder to capital defense, while lower difficulties enjoy much more time for exploration.
AI is quite competent finding goody huts, imo. You can be slightly better by avoiding losing turns exploring the shores and cul-de-sac peninsulas, and fleeing barbarians instead of fighting them, but that's it.

 

[Leondegrance]

This is the reason why we start with a Pathfinder instead of a warrior. Even deity players might be able to find one or two ancient huts. But deity players need to dedicate the Pathfinder to capital defense, while lower difficulties enjoy much more time for exploration.
AI is quite competent finding goody huts, imo. You can be slightly better by avoiding losing turns exploring the shores and cul-de-sac peninsulas, and fleeing barbarians instead of fighting them, but that's it.

True that. I like the huts that promote a pathfinder to scout directly. Such a scout can wipe out a lot of barbarians early on and defend 2-3 cities at once single-handedly.

 

[infidel88]

Sorry for some necromancing, but yes, some cities are hard to conquer

 

[civplayer33]

Thank god for nukes, huh?

 

[infidel88]

In that game Korea had massive tech advantage and used like 10 nukes and when everyone caught up with techs, they banned nukes in UN . They weren't able to ban Great Musician nukes

 

[Cade McCaslin]

Your premise is wrong. Cities are not that hard to conquer. Capitals, maybe.

Use melee, siege and surround the city so it can't heal.

it is impossible to surround some cities (hello mountains) and that completly disregards the fact that you have to completely destroy the opposing army to even attempt a capture. I have had cities with a 1 unit garrison and a castle completly ignore any invading army, taking maybe 3% hp as damage per turn and all I have to do is keep 1 tile open around it and the city will basically never die.

 

[Rekk]

Partial good news? Mountains help surround a city.