Full unit dissapears if city falls?!

[Ermak-]

I think that is crazy. Depending on lag in multi u can loose a city with strong unit inside if opponent manages to move firts. If you didnt fortify city healthy unit will simply vanish after city health is reduced to 0. I dont think that is right. Anyone else thinks that is odd ?

 

[bryanw1995]

if a city is captured with a unit inside the unit dies. multiplayer has lots of issues right now, but if your problem is just lag then you either need a faster computer or better internet connection.

 

[Rathelon]

Yeah, that's not a bug. Any unit(s) inside a city will die if the city is taken.

 

[Ermak-]

there is alwasy mutliplayer lag no matter the conenction. (and i got 10 meg one with i7 pc) i am saying is that u should not be able to take city if the is a full unit inside. they should patch that.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

there is alwasy mutliplayer lag no matter the conenction. (and i got 10 meg one with i7 pc) i am saying is that u should not be able to take city if the is a full unit inside. they should patch that.

Among other things, yes.

The state of MP with 1upt, death plains, and flanking bonuses combined with simultaneous turns is already a strain. Insta kill-shots on ANYTHING in a city w/o fighting it is even more iffy.

 

[alpaca]

Yeah, I'm already annoyed by this in SP but in MP I could imagine it being ridiculous because players will know how to exploit it well.

A good idea is taking the city with horses, then retreating them, but lag might make that impossible for you. As a rule, I try not to stay in cities unless I have to take cover from ranged fire.

 

[Tabarnak]

Make a road around the city.
This let you to circulate without contraints and let the city free of units.
This also gives possibility to catch horses more easily.

But i agree this is sort of a bit lame.

 

[Lyoncet]

I think they could pretty reasonably require the garrisoned unit to be taken down to 0 HP as well without that making garrisoning too powerful (it's already way weaker than it was in previous Civs). Sure, you'd be getting the double bonus of getting a higher city strength on top of having an extra unit's worth of HP before the city falls, but I can't see that being much of an issue with 1UPT. Much less of an issue than what we have now anyways.

Someone pointed out a way to exploit the AI using this mechanic as well. Take a city, desert it, let your opponent take it back (try to pick off the weaker units so they take it with their strongest). Retake the almost-dead city. Bam! Full-health, highly promoted unit bites the dust.

 

[alpaca]

I think they could pretty reasonably require the garrisoned unit to be taken down to 0 HP as well without that making garrisoning too powerful (it's already way weaker than it was in previous Civs). Sure, you'd be getting the double bonus of getting a higher city strength on top of having an extra unit's worth of HP before the city falls, but I can't see that being much of an issue with 1UPT. Much less of an issue than what we have now anyways.

Someone pointed out a way to exploit the AI using this mechanic as well. Take a city, desert it, let your opponent take it back (try to pick off the weaker units so they take it with their strongest). Retake the almost-dead city. Bam! Full-health, highly promoted unit bites the dust.

I like this. Right now, there's just very little incentive to actually use a garrison unit. The only time I put units in cities is to protect them from enemy attacks (mounted or ranged/siege), but that's not exactly what I think the devs had in mind when creating garrisons.

I also think garrisoned units should take a turn to settle in, and a turn to mobilize, but only cost half upkeep or so (or alternatively add some happiness, which I think is moddable right now). This would make garrisons actually meaningful.

 

[Minervis]

I once lost a two-fer also if you some how get surrounded and already have an archer then build one both units now cant do anything. funny stuff when a 1/2hp warrior kills a full hp long-swordsman.

 

[Lyoncet]

I also think garrisoned units should take a turn to settle in, and a turn to mobilize, but only cost half upkeep or so (or alternatively add some happiness, which I think is moddable right now). This would make garrisons actually meaningful.

I like the turn to garrison/mobilize and lowered upkeep ideas if taken along with the "still need to kill the garrisoned unit" mechanic. As for happiness, have you ever taken Military Caste?

 

[alpaca]

I like the turn to garrison/mobilize and lowered upkeep ideas if taken along with the "still need to kill the garrisoned unit" mechanic. As for happiness, have you ever taken Military Caste?

That's why I said the code is in there. +1 happiness if far too weak, though, you'd need something like +3 or +4 for it to be worthwhile. Even then, I doubt it'd be a good idea because it would mean you couldn't take the garrison out of the city, even during wartime because, except for Freedom, there are no flexible happiness mechanisms. Reduced upkeep would probably work better.

 

[Surgeon]

That's why I said the code is in there. +1 happiness if far too weak, though, you'd need something like +3 or +4 for it to be worthwhile. Even then, I doubt it'd be a good idea because it would mean you couldn't take the garrison out of the city, even during wartime because, except for Freedom, there are no flexible happiness mechanisms. Reduced upkeep would probably work better.

+3 or +4? Your joking right? A luxury is only +5.

 

[Gus_Smedstad]

Colosseums are +4, and they cost less than most later-game units to build.

 

[Slowpoke]

yeah but honor is an early tree policy. It's not meant to be incredibly good. I think honor's garrison policy needs to be +1.5 happiness but there's no way to do that.

 

[Paeanblack]

If Garrison was +2 Happy per city, that would supercharge REX+ICS. Scouts are cheap.

1/6th Happy per strength point might be better.

 

[alpaca]

Colosseums are +4, and they cost less than most later-game units to build.

And to maintain.

yeah but honor is an early tree policy. It's not meant to be incredibly good. I think honor's garrison policy needs to be +1.5 happiness but there's no way to do that.

As I said, I would rather have reduced upkeep instead. Then, +1 or +2 happiness would be fine for me.

If Garrison was +2 Happy per city, that would supercharge REX+ICS. Scouts are cheap.

1/6th Happy per strength point might be better.

Scouts are cheap to build but not to maintain. Strength-dependent happiness is interesting but an overcomplication to my mind. I'd rather have +2 or +3 happiness per non-obsolete unit (the non-obsolete thing makes sense so you don't just keep old, outdated units around for garrison).

I'm not yet sure how to tackle ICS, anyways. The way I would look to is to make large cities more interesting by inverting the building strength progression: Make high-tier buildings relatively more useful than low-tier ones instead of making them less useful. Remove specialist slots from libraries and maybe add one to the palace and ICS would probably be nerfed quite significantly already (as a corollary, so would be GS in a way, because they'd be a lot harder to come by)

 

[Udey1]

If Garrison was +2 Happy per city, that would supercharge REX+ICS. Scouts are cheap.

1/6th Happy per strength point might be better.

Just when I was breathing a sigh of relief they finally moved on from the ******** -garrison my cities with warriors- garbage we all did in CIV4.

 

[Paradigne]

Losing a unit in a city makes perfect since to me. If he is in the city, your defense is higher, so he is in there 'fighting' off the attack. It is not at full health if your city falls, he is dead. I actually find it odd that he is at full health if you move him out of a half dead city

 

[Paeanblack]

Losing a unit in a city makes perfect since to me. If he is in the city, your defense is higher, so he is in there 'fighting' off the attack. It is not at full health if your city falls, he is dead. I actually find it odd that he is at full health if you move him out of a half dead city

I like this approach.

Have the attack damage split 2/3rds towards the city and 1/3rd towards the garrison. The net effect of this with an undamaged garrison in an undamaged city means the city now has 30HP, effectively. However, if you move an undamaged unit into an almost dead city, that will only give the city an extra 3HP. It also means that nearly dead units aren't totally safe in cities...they can be killed with a determined assault even without taking the city.

The other effect is that with both the city and the garrison healing each turn, it is MUCH harder to take down a garrisoned city without a determined assault. Plinking at the city with 1 or 2 units won't do anything.