City strength

[El Caballerion]

I've stated before that ranged units (especially archers to crossbowmen) should not be able to kill ANY units, but only be allowed to reduce their health to 1. And I do agree with seige units needing to be more powerful against cities (which they kind of already are), and have more defense against ranged attacks (which they do need a buff).

 

[Guilliman]

They need to give siege units 1 extra range. Solves the whole archer in city mess.

I modded my vanilla: Ranged units = 3 Range instead of 2. Siege = 4

 

[YetiHunter84]

Or nerf city defence range to 1. Probably more historically accurate - you can pour boiling oil on attackers at the city walls, but you need ranged garrisons or cavalry to attack the siege units. It's always bugged me that the city can chuck rocks two whole tiles away, over mountains if need be - they effectively get indirect fire five thousand years early!

 

[joncnunn]

Or nerf city defence range to 1. Probably more historically accurate - you can pour boiling oil on attackers at the city walls, but you need ranged garrisons or cavalry to attack the siege units. It's always bugged me that the city can chuck rocks two whole tiles away, over mountains if need be - they effectively get indirect fire five thousand years early!

I would have city bombardment scale with defense structures:

No defense structures: Range of 1, direct Line of Sight

Castle: Extends Range to 2

Arsenal: Adds indirect fire

Military base: Extends range to 3

 

[bcaiko]

The city changes are a welcome change. It makes peaceful playing more possible by making Domination a less viable option. Cities should be hard to take. And that's from a routine warmonger.

This guy sounds real smart and said exactly what I was going to say, but 7 months ago when this thread began.