Defensive City Placement

[Stalker0]

Throughout the threads people often talk about the power of defensive city placement. In my current game, I had a really good example that I thought I would show

In my early scout, I saw this location, with the Mongols as my immediate neighbors. This means I'm going to deal with a DOW pretty much off the bat. So I rushed this position like a mad man and secured it.

The trick is, I have shield myself from ranged attacks. If you want to hit me, you have to get in close. All of Monguls archers have been nullified, no warrior that wants to hit the city can do it without me getting a round on them first, and with my two archers in back, any warrior that does is a dead man. Honestly, the second archer was overkill, I was being too paranoid. I am now exceptionally safe, and I've just gone back to regular business. If I had not secured such a defensive position, I would be scrambling, building more units, diverting workers, and all in all just having a terrible time.

Defensive cities, are the best cities!

 

[Stalker0]

Here's the counterplay, as it looks like the AI has been reading the strategy forums!

While I dealing with the Monguls, the Celts forward settled me here. This is also a very good defensive spot, there is only 1 spot that can hit that city (the hills to the upper right). My hope is to draw a defensive line with the Celts early on, because taking that spot will be quite the challenge.

 

[azum4roll]

Those positions were actually very vulnerable to skirmishers before the nerf, since they could keep shooting without getting hit by the city (even with walls in Salzburg's case) and anything else other than horsemen and skirmishers. Now they're very good.

 

[Stalker0]

Those positions were actually very vulnerable to skirmishers before the nerf, since they could keep shooting without getting hit by the city (even with walls in Salzburg's case) and anything else other than horsemen and skirmishers. Now they're very good.

Yep, I would argue that was part of the reason for their nerf. The only really counter to strong skirmisher play before was a river....or more skirmishers.

 

[randomnub]

Mongol skirmishers should have no issue at all against Salzburg though

 

[CrazyG]

This is a great example of why the older skirmishers were so strong before. Areas which were otherwise so defensible were quite easy to attack with skirmishers. Now the AI does an excellent job of settling cities which make me scratch my head when I plan an attack.

 

[Stalker0]

Here is an example of an area I think I could have done better in.

This city is holding decently well but it could be better. I really should have moved that bottom citadel 1 more space down and to the right (over the cow). Currently, while the citadel is decent, it has exposure from range attacks from a couple of spots and it allows too much movement from the south. Over the cow, it would completely lock up the southern spaces, so that anyone coming over the hill or that jungle run into it. Then I could replace that citadel spot with a fort and put a bow in it. The fort would then only have to contend with a straight knight charge (which would just lead to the knight being killed). Any ranged units that try to setup and hit it would be forced into my kill zones, and would not last long. I could then tuck a medic right behind the fort (and citadel), and have a really strong south line, while the city itself handles any action from directly west. Hehe the reason that Elephant is in the fort instead of a nice sturdy longsword is because Spain surprised me on a DOW and my southern defenses showed their weakness. She took out the first longsword, so I had to do an emergency elephant charge before she pillaged the citadel. I have retaken it, and thankfully my CS allies are tying her up giving me a change to reestablish.

North of the city is still more open than I would like. I am thinking of a citadel over the wheat (the one right against the river), and then put forts on both sides. Its open, but the desert forces people into my range without an attack, so I always have initiative. The spot right next to the city would be great to lock up directly west but its too open from ranged attacks on flood plain tiles (meaning the enemy can move in an attack before I get to counter, and that's too much damage even for a unit in a citadel, I don't want to deal with that. But with that final citadel, nothing can cross the river without taking a good amount of pain, so its just managing the ranged attackers at that point. This city encompasses my whole defensive line (I have the water on my eastern and northern front, and mountains and allied CS protecting my south....so I don't mind investing a little extra in this one. Honestly, I have been very negligent in at least building more forts along the river...I enjoyed the wheat triangle but I don't need this city to grow...I need it to hold against the darkness!

Previously, I used to think citadels were about the +100% defensive bonus. Its nice, but really the 30 damage is the key. If you pick spots that ranged units can't hit, than your enemy is forced to use melee to deal with them...or go around them. But if you use rough terrain to lock up the enemy, they are forced to engage your citadel, and a melee unit that starts off with 30 hp lost...all it takes is a few ranged units in back and that unit is toast. Keep a medic in back, and that citadel becomes nigh invincible.

 

[andersw]

The first picture with the forward settle on the Mongols is insane, I had to double check to find river on the north side which also helps.
I have a hard time finding stuff like that and would likely just have settled the hill 1sw.
What I have noticed is with a LOT of war practice I dont need as extreme defensive positions as I used to and can settle more greedy.
But it's also things like in dicey situations to keep some gold for that emergency archer/spearman-gold incase of a dow.
After the skirmisher nerf I value indirect fire very high, test a game with Babylon and their bowmen with indirect out of the box, rough terrain combat is breeze, just don't rip the scout.

 

[azum4roll]

+1 Range also works against Salzburg, and I usually value that over Indirect Fire unless the terrain has lots of trees.

 

[andersw]

+1 Range also works against Salzburg, and I usually value that over Indirect Fire unless the terrain has lots of trees.

I find indirect to be vastly better, because of half and 2/3 or a tile counts as sight blocker, sure there are exceptions but I feel I get much more use of indirect.

 

[azum4roll]

For hilly terrain without trees, as long as your ranged unit is on a hill it can shoot anything within range. It's only trees that are problematic. Trees on hills especially.

 

[tu_79]

It's easier to place the archers in good spots playing defensively. Not that much being on the attack. I'd say indirect fire is better for the latter.