How many defenders do you put in cities?

[AlanH]

A warrior is upgradable in the games I play, and upgrades to the same defence as a spear plus attack 3 (sword) or 4 (MI). A spear is also upgradable, but his attack strength remains at 1 until he gets to musket, half way through the middle ages. I'd rather build 3 warriors than 2 spears.

 

[SJ Frank]

I have come to the conclusion that:

#1) Some cities, especially resource cities do have to have units sitting in them, otherwise the AI will sneak attack. If you don’t believe me, in you next game, try founding a city next to an iron and leaving it empty. It’s just a matter of time before a pair of legionnaires knock on your door…

#2) But those units don’t have to be defensive units.

#3) The army that you keep during peace time for defensive purposes should have the same composition as your war time army, such that in a pinch, everyone of the units can be sent to the front. The only wasted unit is a unit that never fights.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Alan, in C3C upgrade costs have been increased - now *3 instead of *2; I fully agree Warriors were better before.

I need to add that I'm a very careful player when it's about going to war - I much prefer Cats+Swords+1 Spear to Horses. I just can't stand the random factor of Horses - they can take a city without casualties, if you have luck with retreating. You can as well loose a bunch of them for nothing. Even against Warriors or Archers defending.
I try to stay away from war before MDI in general.

Also, my playing style for sure is heavily influenced from playing DyP/RAR; and thus I sometimes have odd habbits in unmodded (like trying to specialize cities...).

 

[AlanH]

@Doc: Fair point. I should always preface my comments with the fact that I'm a one-trick vanilla player.

Cats don't do much for me. I'd really like to see (or do) a decent analysis of the cost/benefit of cats. As it is I tend to avoid building any artillery units until artillery and bombers if I get that far, when the range and performance starts getting to be useful.

I can't wait for MDI, I like to weaken my neighbours earlier than that, and preferably own my continent by the early middle ages. By the time we have MDI we are up against pikes. That's 4/(4+3)=0.6 probability per hit point. Horses vs spears are 2/(2+2)=0.5, a little lower, but with a retreat option to reduce losses, so you need many fewer to achieve comparable results. They can also move twice as fast, and don't have to present themselves as sitting targets right outside an enemy city, hence the reduced need for defensive cover.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I'm aware you're refering to Vanilla, btw.
Yes, Cats are indeed questionable - but, again, in C3C you have Trebuchets. And those are not questionable. In fact, they are among my favorite units. So, the equitation is more in my favor - those Pikes usually have less then 4 HP. Preferably 2 or 1. And that is the problem with Horses, since they of course don't retreat in such a case.
Also, if everything goes right, the outlying AI cities I attack are still defended by Spears; at that time, they often lack Barracks or road connections even on Sid.
I don't like continents. Either Archipelagos, or Pangea. That doesn't mean you can avoid ancient warfare, but this 'Clear your landmass before the MA' goal isn't as feasable.
Shows again how much the question about 'The Better Strategy' depends on your preferences.

 

[Rubberjello]

I just thought I would chime in here with pbem perspective. When playing against another human player, defensive units become much more imperitive because you cannot depend upon the stupidity of the AI like you can in all of the scenarios mentioned above. Against human players, you *have* to defend your border cities, arty stacks, and even some of your inner cities from either Conquistadors or from a well-planned breakthrough city/chain attack.
Many times, your battles end up being done with massive stacks of combined arms slugging it out. Sure, your defensive units die like flies, but they take the full force of the opponent's punch, leaving your arty and unharmed offensive units available for a massive counterstrike.
In this type of warfare, (I believe somebody famous said this), it all comes down to who can out-produce the other side. Defensive units are always cheaper, if only by 10 shields. But if you are losing 10+ units a turn in a war, it adds up quickly!
Sorry for hijacking a thread that was obviously geared for single player. But I hope that by putting in a different perspective, you will see how this whole subject is predicated on the weakness of the AI. In other words, if the AI was actually a skilled and opportunistic human player, there is no way in heck you would not produce defensive units and not defend your border cities with many defenders. I personally dislike taking advantage of the AI in my solo games, and so I usually build defensive units and put them in most of my cities, just as if a "real" country would. But then again, I don't want to "judge" players who do take advantage of the weak AI, as everybody should play the game the way that they feel comfortable with, or have the most fun with.

 

[Tomoyo]

I normally don't build defenders, but as I am learning in my lastest AWD game (number 29 ), defenders are better for attacking and attackers are better for defending. You will get attacked more in the place you are attacking than where you are defending when you and your enemy are both on different islands.

 

[vmxa]

I have come to the conclusion that:

#1) Some cities, especially resource cities do have to have units sitting in them, otherwise the AI will sneak attack. If you don’t believe me, in you next game, try founding a city next to an iron and leaving it empty. It’s just a matter of time before a pair of legionnaires knock on your door…

I had to shake my head on this, it was hard to follow. I mean am I going to sit by and let them traipse through my land to get to this city? Or are you saying it is a border city, in that case I think we all agree with will have units in it of some type.

Or at least we will have some buffer, so we can get units in to protect the town. That is why we have some what of close spacing so we can back cities up with units form other cities.

So I guess I do not see how this relates to the issue defenders for defenders sake, IOW spears.

Definetly I would not leave border towns empty, unless there was no way the AI could reach them before I could stop it (mountains, jungle, etc or a very long open space).

 

[mikehunt]

1
except for border cities that are likely to get attacked. they sometimes get more, usually if I'm actively at war with the civ they border and that civ is actually counter attacking and not just being on defense against me

 

[AlanH]

Any town is a border town when an Ai unit is within a turn of walking into it. And AI units have a habit of ignoring minor inconveniences like cultural boundaries. Particularly early on in a higher level game, you may not be ready for war, and so you don't usually want to issue a "Get out or declare" ultimatum. So you sometimes need to shadow foreign troop movements to ensure that your towns are not sitting ducks. But usually any unit with attack/defence ratings will deter such an opportunistic attack, so that's a job for troops who will later be your attack force. I wouldn't build dedicated defenders for this task, and once again, fast units can cover more towns than slow units.

 

[oldStatesman]

I have found the hrd way that if you are giving RoP's after you have railroads, you must defend all of your cities. I have been sneak attacked several times by RoP partners - they always seem to go to the weakest city no matter where it is in your land. And rails let them get anywhere. When I get Flight, I usually build Flak(then MobSams) for this purpose - then I have them available to concentrate where required when I need to defend a city/army from enemy Bomber attacks.

 

[SJ Frank]

I had to shake my head on this, it was hard to follow. I mean am I going to sit by and let them traipse through my land to get to this city? Or are you saying it is a border city, in that case I think we all agree with will have units in it of some type.

Or at least we will have some buffer, so we can get units in to protect the town. That is why we have some what of close spacing so we can back cities up with units form other cities.

So I guess I do not see how this relates to the issue defenders for defenders sake, IOW spears.

Definetly I would not leave border towns empty, unless there was no way the AI could reach them before I could stop it (mountains, jungle, etc or a very long open space).

I'm sorry if I was confusing. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone here. In fact, Point #1 does not address the spears issue at all It attempts to answer the question: "does every town need a defender?" And my thoughts on it is, "not every town, just the ones with resources".

Now, if the Iron town is not on the border, does it need defenders? I'd say that it still does, because even though we get early warning on the sneak attack, it is still best to avoid the sneak attack altogether.

Points #2 and 3 sums up my opinion on the spear issue, which is, "it depends". For people like Doc, he might as well build a few spears, because he is going to need it anyways. For AlanH, since he doesn't like to use spears during his offensive wars, he should not build spears to defend cities.

Another way to put it: when deciding what to build for city defense, build as ifyou already have 2 spears sitting in each city, and this new unit is going to be used in your next offensive. This is the most efficient way to build units. In peace, they serve to deter AI invasions. In war, they can all be used if neccessary.

 

[vmxa]

I have found the hrd way that if you are giving RoP's after you have railroads, you must defend all of your cities. I have been sneak attacked several times by RoP partners - they always seem to go to the weakest city no matter where it is in your land. And rails let them get anywhere. When I get Flight, I usually build Flak(then MobSams) for this purpose - then I have them available to concentrate where required when I need to defend a city/army from enemy Bomber attacks.

Why would make an RoP when you have rails up?

 

[AlanH]

I've signed RoPs in the past when I wanted to build rails in a neighbour's territory to complete strategic links. This can be very useful to enable you to attack the next civ, allying with the one you have the RoP with so that you have a buffer state between you and the civ you are attacking. After you have killed or severely maimed the remote civ you can then turn your attentions on your neighbour. The rails you built now allow you to overrun his cities very quickly.

 

[Own]

I prefer defensive over offensive on high difficulty levels, which is all I play (not to mention lose). Defensive units can still attack if the opposing defender(s) is redlined with artillery. One of the 2 ways to beat the insane SOD's on Demigod and above is to get a great kill ratio in your favor (another way is to avoid fighting them by baiting and using armies to make a "hallway" to the bait). Sending a bunch of offensive units into enemy territory won't get the job done. They require tons of protection from defensive units and armies.

 

[oldStatesman]

Why would make an RoP when you have rails up?

Why not if your game strategy requires it?

I am currently playing a huge map/continents regent game against 15 other Civs. I have rails and a RoP with everyone. So far, I have avoided most wars, starting one only when I wanted/needed to, I have great attitudes with all other Civs, make a lot of extra gold with trade, and I am leading going into the early modern age. The benefits RoP's gave me in this game have outweighed their negatives in this attepted peaceful strategy. I am not a warmonger, but a builder; I really don't enjoy playing all war Civ games; if I want that I'd play a real strategy simulation such as Harpoon or Tanks or some such. So learning to play with RoP's is fun to me - hence the warning to defend your cities if you use them.

 

[vmxa]

Why not if your game strategy requires it?

I am currently playing a huge map/continents regent game against 15 other Civs. I have rails and a RoP with everyone. So far, I have avoided most wars, starting one only when I wanted/needed to, I have great attitudes with all other Civs, make a lot of extra gold with trade, and I am leading going into the early modern age. The benefits RoP's gave me in this game have outweighed their negatives in this attepted peaceful strategy. I am not a warmonger, but a builder; I really don't enjoy playing all war Civ games; if I want that I'd play a real strategy simulation such as Harpoon or Tanks or some such. So learning to play with RoP's is fun to me - hence the warning to defend your cities if you use them.

Well you did get rape, did you not? That sounds like a good reason to me. Of course there are times to make an RoP. None I can think of that would allow me to not at least shadow any stacks and get caught with my pants down.

Building is fine, peace full is fine, neither requires me to have RoP's or MPP's with everyone. The point is that even at Regent they Ai will jump at a chance to grab an open city and RoP's + RR makes it so that covers a lot of territory.

My point is that it is a risky proposition once rails are up and other civs are in the RoP scheme. Now the attack can come from any place and can be hidden.

Thus forcing you to have defenders every place. How many do you need to defend all cities at all times from all civs? You can stay on good terms without an RoP.

 

[oldStatesman]

Well you did get rape, did you not? That sounds like a good reason to me. Of course there are times to make an RoP. None I can think of that would allow me to not at least shadow any stacks and get caught with my pants down.

Building is fine, peace full is fine, neither requires me to have RoP's or MPP's with everyone. The point is that even at Regent they Ai will jump at a chance to grab an open city and RoP's + RR makes it so that covers a lot of territory.

My point is that it is a risky proposition once rails are up and other civs are in the RoP scheme. Now the attack can come from any place and can be hidden.

Thus forcing you to have defenders every place. How many do you need to defend all cities at all times from all civs? You can stay on good terms without an RoP.

Yes I did get Rop-raped. But it was a great learning experience. I took the city back next turn, and 3/4 of the American empire besides in the next 10-15 turns. As a peacemonger, it gave me an excuse to take 2 luxs that I had been paying for without having to declare, thus helping with ww.

My point is that one needs to learn to play with RoP's, not just 'never' give them. After seeing the way the AI violated it, I started putting at least one defensive unit in each city - used the obsolete units I could not afford to upgrade; after Flight I need Flak and Sams anyway to defend against the eventual enemy bombers - (going for space or Cultural win) - so why not keep them in the cities as defenders, with rails I can move them where needed after war is declared and the AI no longer can use my rails.

I also have learned the value of Rop/RR chokepoints - i.e. only have rails cross my borders at certain pounts, not everywhere. Keep a clear zone around them with no roads; preferably mountains or hills, build a fort/barricade over them and keep a strong defender in them and even peaceful AI's cannot use the rails without spending a turn or two going around my blocks. This way I can see what their intentions are - after the Amis surprised me, the Ott's tried the same thing, but I saw them massing, was able to build rails into their Cities due to my RoP with them that turn and put some Cav and infantry and arty next to them as a detterent, and when they still attacked me a turn later after tediously going cross country around my rail choke points it was easy to take 3 of their cities my next turn. (They came close to taking one of my cities as I did not know which they would go for but no matter - even if they did I would have still taken three of theirs.) And no rep hit to me for violating a RoP. If they had not attacked, I would have withdrawn my forces.

My empire as the Byzantiums is scattered across the globe - on the second continent I had 4 colonies widely dispersed mainly established to get luxs/resources. By getting RoP's with the 6 civs there I was able to build rails where needed through their territory to connect my empire. The Germans just tried to attack me, because of the RoP choke points I built they could only attack me at the borders - Using the rails myself through the other countries I was able to hold them off and bomb them into submission; (my military on that continent is weaker than on my main one - very defensive oriented) plus use my obsolete cav and an army to capture several of their workers who were dumb enough to be near their borders. I have crippled the Germans who were my closest tech rival on that continent by destroying a lot of infrastructure and making sure they don't have enough workers to rebuild fast enough and also took a few small isolated size 2 mountain cities of theirs they could not really defend (spears) as they had not built roads to them yet (I used a Helicopter to airdrop a TOW, 2 elite infantry I had not upgraded and airdropped 6 paras) that gave me access to several Gem fields.

Yes , RoP's are risky, but by using them the way I have I have learned an awful lot about them - they are a tool that can and should be used creatively when the situation demands, IMHO. Maybe at higher levels they won't work this way, but honestly I will not play past the level where Civ becomes nothing but war all the time and one cannot build a balanced empire because of the way the AI gets advantages. It's the building that interests me; war as a tool of diplomacy (I follow Teddy Roosevelt's dictum - speak sofly, carry a vbig stick et al ) to help me in this is fun, but war as the point of the game is not of interest to me, their are too many other war only simulations out there that are IMHO very realistic if that's what I want.

Sorry to write a book - thanks sincerely for the differing viewpoint - I like that as it helps me think!

 

[gunkulator]

I try to stay away from war before MDI in general.

Attacking in the AA has some advantages. First, you will only face spearman. Second, many will be regulars. Third, they'll mostly be in towns. Fourth, there probably won't be more than 2 per town. Once I build 7 or 8 horses or swords, I can easily take a couple AI cities before they can do much about it. Make peace quickly and get a tech and/or a city to disband. Or if the war is going well, get an alliance and get the AI's fighting each other while you sit back. Nothing cripples the AI better than early war, as long as it's not one-sided

Although MDI + Pikes + Trebs is my favorite time for war, I don't hesitate to grab some land in the AA. And if I don't have iron in my territory, I can't get the horsie stack up and going quick enough.

 

[vmxa]

oldStatesman no problem. I just wanted to point out I don't think I said never make RoP's, although they are rare for me. I only wondered why make one after rails are up.

I have had Demi and Deity games where I gave RoP to get troops out of my land, before rails. I have not done it at Sid, since it has not come up (get killed on pangea and don't see it on continet or archi).

So for sure there are any number of reason to make RoP's, but always I have to have a very good reason/need. I am not going to ever do it for better relations only.