Garrisoning

[Further Ado]

Hi All, if I want to garrison a unit in a city to bolster it's defensive strength, it,s never clear to me what type of unit is best for the role, in terms of melee, ranged, or artillery.

Not using the unit to attack from the city, mind, but just strait up garrisoning to bolster defensive strength. Anyone know how this works?

 

[Bartonar]

whichever unit you can make that is most powerful, it seems, as they only increase the strength by thier attack/defence numbers.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I like ranged units. This means that the city can fire twice. in the late game when ranged units have awesome range the cities can become really difficult to take if the can bombard so heavily.

 

[Fizpez2]

Get a ranged in there pretty much at all cost - if you actually have a choice of 2 keep the melee unit in reserve to rush in and finish off likely targets - cheap xp.

 

[diz2]

Isn't there a difference between being located in a city and being garrisoned in a city?

I was under the impression that if you garrison a ranged unit it does not have the ability to fire. Of course, you can wake it up and use it at any time, but then it no longer is garrisoned and no longer gives the garrison bonus.

I'm not a big believer in garrisoning. If you can't protect a city with units it's going to go down depsite any defensive bonus, and you lose the unit. I would, for example, rather withdraw my unit to a point where I can reinforce with other units and make a stand. If you are not actually fighting, then garrisoning is just expensive with little benefit.

The reason to put ranged units in a city (and any unit that has been weakened, really) is that they are protected from ranged attack and can heal much faster when there is an opportunity. Tactical use of cities is a very big part of any defense for me, but garrsoning them not so much.

 

[Joeexplorer]

I don't usually garrison any city unless it's a border city. Is there a bonus or other reason to garrison?

 

[Callonia]

I don't usually garrison any city unless it's a border city. Is there a bonus or other reason to garrison?

If you have Military Caste from Honor Social Policies = 1 happy face per garrisoned unit XD

Other than that. To save space on hexes for you to maneuver around on.

 

[Calouste]

If you have Military Caste from Honor Social Policies = 1 happy face per garrisoned unit XD

Other than that. To save space on hexes for you to maneuver around on.

And in the upcoming patch the Oligarchy SP makes garrisoned units maintenance free and doubles the bombard strength of cities with a garrison.

 

[GfxJG]

I personally use Siege units for garrisons when in a defensive war, offensie wars I obviously use them for offensive purposes =P

 

[Knut_Are_M]

1/5th of base strength of the unit to city.
and unit heals by 3 hp per turn.

 

[Joeexplorer]

all that stuff is fine on a border city. but what about a city that has almost no chance of getting razed?

 

[dubrown]

In the current ruleset (pre feb patch) there's really no real reason to garrison a unit. Sure the honor happinessbonus but that's way to small a bonus to validate having a unit in each city (IMHO).

If you garrison to raise the defense of a threatened city you should use the unit with the highest defensive strenght, usually a meele troop. Ranged units can be kept behind the city and still fire upon the enemy.

However, most likely you'll almost always be on the offense with any troop in the city and then having the ranged stationed there to avoid taking damage is a good idea. I usually try not to allow the enemy to hit my cities with enough to capture it so the defensive bonus of a garrisoned unit will be fairly useless. And if I know I'll loose the city whatever I do it's better to leave it empty to not loose the garrisoned unit as well as the city.

 

[Polish]

I never garrison cities unless I get a happy point for the garrison, then I build lots of scouts promoted to medic and use them as garrisons. My experience has been that the combat unit is actually much more effective defending OUTSIDE the city, otherwise, the city gets bombarded, then attacked and the combat unit never gets to fight.

The other choice is to attack out of the city and be forced to move out after combat. I really hate the fact that you don't get the choice about moving forward after combat, especially with modern troops. Anyone after rifles should have a choice.

Anyway, you don't get the garrison benefit for ranged units in the city, but they can attack out without the possibility of being attacked in return--unless the city falls.

 

[joncnunn]

Often I end up sending red-lined units into cities to Garrison simply for them to heal.

When the city itself is the front line and so there is no screen to hide behind; the ranged units usually need to be in them to avoid being wiped out.

Basically, it's the cities job to protect a unit; not a units job to protect a city.

If one of your cities might actually fall into enemy hands, you have a much bigger problem than what unit should be inside.

Hi All, if I want to garrison a unit in a city to bolster it's defensive strength, it,s never clear to me what type of unit is best for the role, in terms of melee, ranged, or artillery.

Not using the unit to attack from the city, mind, but just strait up garrisoning to bolster defensive strength. Anyone know how this works?

 

[trueblue]

always ranged. unless the city is in danger of falling in the next turn. any promoted ranged unit is too valuable to loose.

ive found the couple of extra hit points that a garrisoned unit gives a city not to be worth it.