Does the city have very good ranged defence like in CIV5?

[GMAK2442]

Hey guys

This is very important for me. Because if there is a very good city defence like in CIV5 and a large army is needed to take town, I won't play this new civ. And so I won't follow all the thread of the forums to be inform and prepare.

So anybody know?

Edit:
I have watch a video of IGN in the E3 just after writing this thread and it appear that there is no city defence like in CIV5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The actual numbers will be balanced, but so far we know cities require walls to have ranged attack.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Warfare has changed in several ways, but It's impossible to give you a straight "yes or no" answer GMAK2442.

-Movement has changed
-Cities are un-stacked, with important buildings vulnerable to attacks.
-Encampments allow for a second defense hub.
-Nuclear weapons can destroy wonders.

I would recommend you to wait until the game is released and come back to ask that question before you buy.

 

[GMAK2442]

I have watch a video of IGN in the E3 just after writing this thread and it appear that there is no city defence like in CIV5.

 

[bookman_]

We haven's seen any ranged city attack yet, but we know that cites can't attack until they have walls, and that once they have walls, their military district is also given a ranged attack.

So one one hand it would bo logical to have the attack at least as strong as in V since it's not a free capacity but something you have to pay for, on the other hand since there a second ranged attack with the military district it would be logical to have it less powerful to avoi an overpowered combo with the two attacks at once.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

Pure speculation on my part, but I think the city will be able to defend itself on its own, just like CiV: has hp and damage any melee unit.
However won't be able to shoot back till walls are built.

I feel you since, as a warmonger, I felt that cities are quite difficult to take before arties/frigates.

But in the end it's just a matter of tuning: CiV system could work fine if melee were less damaged and range strength of city lower. Check out Acken's mod in this regard if you want to give it a try.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

Undefended cities will most likely be much easier to take in Civilization VI compared to civ 5. The main reason for this is that you can stack siege units on the same tile as Infantery units or archers or cavalry.
You can gain quite a bit from useing cavalry to just pillage stuff as well.
Even if you do not manage to take the city, you will be able to ruin every single building he has. No more marketplaces, workshops, etc.

So you can completly cripple a player that goes wide with 0 defences.

Ps Civilization VI seems to favor wide play with chokes and military defence. So not ics, but isolated civs with lots of room will most likely become runaway civs.

Early game before walls cities will fall fast to a battering ram and slinger combo. PS so if someone settle in your face you can take it easily if all he builds are settlers.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Undefended cities will most likely be much easier to take in Civilization VI compared to civ 5. The main reason for this is that you can stack siege units on the same tile as Infantery units or archers or cavalry.

We don't know that. It's speculation.

We know you can stack units of the same type into corps and armies late in the game. We do know you can stack "support units" to supplement primary melee and ranged units. We have seen a few dedicated "support units" such as Battering Rams. But we don't actually know that you can use a melee unit and a ranged unit together on the same tile.

 

[Sobornost]

I can't imagine they'll let ranged units + cities get so imbalanced relative to melee units as they did in Civ 5.

 

[redwings1340]

I'm guessing cities will still be hard to take, but crippling a city will be relatively easy, because of all the buildings, wonders, and districts that exist outside of the city itself.

It's a bit hard to tell though, because we've only gotten a limited amount of time to look at it.

 

[MIS]

Hey guys

This is very important for me. Because if there is a very good city defence like in CIV5 and a large army is needed to take town, I won't play this new civ. And so I won't follow all the thread of the forums to be inform and prepare.

So anybody know?

Edit:
I have watch a video of IGN in the E3 just after writing this thread and it appear that there is no city defence like in CIV5.

I assume you're asking more for the early era's, when cities' ranged strength made more of a difference. What army size did you need in Civ5? What's your ideal number if you were making the game?

 

[GMAK2442]

I assume you're asking more for the early era's, when cities' ranged strength made more of a difference. What army size did you need in Civ5? What's your ideal number if you were making the game?

CIV was all fine in CIV4.

Yes, I'm talking about the most important, the early era and so the rush in mp.

 

[AriochIV]

Unable to speculate
Data insufficient

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Unable to speculate
Data insufficient

More like for any model that fits civ, you can change the conclusion by altering the numbers.

For extreme examples, think of a Civ V game where ranged damage caps at 5, or a Civ IV game where city defense scales to 1000% defensive bonuses if not bombarded down.

Such changes at the extremes would alter how those games play drastically, even if the mechanics/interactions/rules are otherwise held constant.

Nothing we see now lets us viably predict the meta later unless we have firm information that stuff isn't going to change, which would be nuts at this stage of development .

 

[Tabarnak]

CIV was all fine in CIV4.

Yes, I'm talking about the most important, the early era and so the rush in mp.

I hated civ4 mp in many ways and 1 reason was the ''ability'' to conquer a neighbor capital on turn 5 because he started with a worker and got no unit to defend his city.

I hope that it will not be the case for civ6. Maybe we will need certain type of units to capture a city to prevent cheesy play à la civ4.

 

[King Jason]

Information being gleaned in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567143&page=36) seem to suggest that conquering cities could remain a formidable task. Personally, I think this is a good thing and while of course civ5 city-sieging seemed way more difficult than previous versions... it was all too easy once I learned how to play. With some patience and knowing how to game the A.I. (Civ5's weakest area, imo) you could take early cities with a handful of archers and a warrior quite early even at high difficulties.

In regards to multiplayer - I personally enjoyed the slugfests civ5 seemed to allow for due to the difficulty of taking cities.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This is very important for me. Because if there is a very good city defence like in CIV5 and a large army is needed to take town, I won't play this new civ. And so I won't follow all the thread of the forums to be inform and prepare.

Here are some of the big changes that we know so far about civ6 combat and cities:
- Walls are now required for the city to have a ranged attack. So a new 1 pop city will not be able to range attack anymore.
- Walls do add a second "health bar" to cities. The attack will need to bring the walls down to 0 HP and then take the city's HP down to 0 before taking the city. This will obviously make taking walled cities harder.
- Walls also give the encampment a ranged attack. So a walled city with an encampment will have 2 ranged attacks
- Melee units now require a "battering ram" support unit stacked with it in order to attack walls.
- Districts mean that battles will most likely take place further from cities since players will want to defend their districts.

Of course, it will come down to what the attacker has and what the defender has. It looks like cities without walls will be easier to take since they won't have a ranged attack or extra HP. So attacking cities without walls will most likely be easier in civ6 than in civ5. Conversely, walls adding an extra HP bar and a ranged attack will mostly make walled cities tough to take unless you have a lot of battering rams/catapults.

Personally, I think these changes make a lot of sense because they are more realistic. Historically, unwalled cities were more vulnerable whereas walled cities required tough sieges.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm thinking that some wars are going to involve me coming in, reducing the walls to 0HP in order to disable the city's ranged attack, then pillaging all the tiles, before running away. Just to avoid the warmonger hit of taking a city. Mess 'em up and leave 'em.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

As long as the city walls don't quadruple(!!) the defense like they did in Civ II, I'll be a happy puppy...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm thinking that some wars are going to involve me coming in, reducing the walls to 0HP in order to disable the city's ranged attack, then pillaging all the tiles, before running away. Just to avoid the warmonger hit of taking a city. Mess 'em up and leave 'em.

Except that if you declare a "surprise war" I think you get the warmonger penalty regardless of taking cities. I could be wrong though but the diplo screen shows the option to "declare a surprise war" with the note "+10% warmonger penalty" under it. Why would it say "+10% warmonger penalty under "surprise war" if the penalty was only for taking a city?