Is it possible to take cities without siege engines?

[synthboy]

What do people think? Is there ever the opportunity to take out cities without having to resort to smashing down their defences with a huge stack of siege engines? Is this a good thing? Realistic, yes, but its a pain to have to rush to construction if you want to start a war. I myself haven't been able to take any cities without the support of siege engines unless I've been willing to throw huge numbers of troops away.

 

[FrequencySurfer]

Praetorians

 

[Artanis]

You can take down cities early without siege engines early on before their defenses get too high: an Archer fortified in 40% Defense is still no match for a Swordsman, much less the feared Praetorians

Later in the game, if you have access to really strong units (namely from a tech lead), you can simply punch your way through defenses simply by being so much stronger (Cossacks attacking Muskets - or Longbows - comes to mind). Also, no matter what your relative tech level is, there's bound to be a couple of underfended cities that you can simply overrun with a stack of fast troops that are out pillaging.

 

[Dark Helmet]

If you have a large enough military then yes, you can take a city without seige units. I wouldn't see why you would want to though, unless you were aiming to use only mobile units for a blitz-krieg invasion.

 

[cairo140]

A massive stack attack will usually do the job, but if you're in the case of matching up production time to results, seige is by far the way to go.

 

[Meffy]

You're encouraged to do me once, but if you do me more than once, you'll be arrested. What am I?

My guesses: Marriage or voting.

While I've been able (at Warlord and below) to take cities without siege engines, it sure does make things a lot easier on the rest of "the guys" to have some artillery along.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

What do people think? Is there ever the opportunity to take out cities without having to resort to smashing down their defences with a huge stack of siege engines? Is this a good thing? Realistic, yes, but its a pain to have to rush to construction if you want to start a war. I myself haven't been able to take any cities without the support of siege engines unless I've been willing to through huge numbers of troops away.

If its a capital with culture, on a hill then I'd say no. Just tried to rush Berlin (which had Stonehenge and Pyramids) with 12 swordsman (all city raider I at least) and 4 assorted axemen...defenders were 3 archers , spearman and axeman, I lost miserably..typical result was first swordsman takes archer from 3.0 to 2.8 (need I say more)..

 

[Grachi]

if the city is accessible by port, I wouldn't see why not when u can get a destroyer in there which can devestate city defense.

Earlier on though I find myself just stacking and attacking.

If it's a more worthy opponent I usually have a few catapults or cannons in there...

And lets face it: Siege units are cool

 

[kingjoshi]

Tanks (with bonuses from vassalage, theocracy, barracks and pentagon) can start with City Raider III! With that, they can beat artillery, machine guns, infantry and riflemen a good percentage of time. It's war though, you'll always lose guys...

 

[Lord Chambers]

Anyone using Chu-ko-nu to siege and attack at once?

 

[vinstafresh]

Chu-ko-nu's are great! Too bad they are slow...

 

[Mahatmajon]

IMO it's an error if you're NOT taking cities before siege engines.

I don't like big/epic games so I usually play standard maps and often small maps. In 90% of games after I have 3-4 cities I build up a small army of 2-3 axemen (combat1 in preparation for cover), 2-3 swordsmen (city raider I), & an archer (hill promotion). If Iron isn't available substitute axemen with city raider.

This army is enough to take out almost anything that isn't a capital or on a hill. If things go well I can usually reinforce and take out capitals/hill cities without problems, too. The key is to look for barbarians or enemy archers out in the open and get your axemen/swordsmen another promotion before attacking the city. If you can get another promotion with all of these troops you'll have:
Axeman with combat 1/cover = ~6.9 vs. archers
Swordsman wity city raider 2 = 9 vs. cities

The AI at this point will have almost entirely archers. Use the axemen to fight troops outside the city & the swordsmen to attack the cities. Best I've done with this was in GOTM II where I won quite a few ~40% attacks without loss. All of the sworsmen were up to City raider III+Combat 1 (~10.8) and the axemen were Combat 2+cover+shock (7.5). I was able to knock 2 AI's down to 2 cities each and sustain 100% science with the money from razing cities.

The other great part is that the City Raider III/Combat I swordsmen can be upgraded to macemen and then to grenadiers and riflemen. Those are deadly.

 

[TLHeart]

Early game I have found that chariots, and horse archers with the flanking promotion is a great way to weaken the enemy before my axman take the city.

This is on Prince, city on plains, defended by 2 archers, I sent in 5 chariots, lost the first chariot, reduced archer to 1.2. Second chariot withdrawls, second archer 1.8. 3rd chariot dies, 2 archer .2. 4th chariot wins 1st archer destroyed. 5th chariot wins 2nd archer destoyed. Never had to use the axemen. Now I have 3 chariots all with flanking 2, and I still have my 5 axemen for the next city. A great early technique. Horse archers cost more hammers than chariots, but also have a 6 strength.

 

[Rabbit_Alex]

If you have a large enough military then yes, you can take a city without seige units. I wouldn't see why you would want to though, unless you were aiming to use only mobile units for a blitz-krieg invasion.

I did that once using nothing but Russian Cossacks (cavalry units) and plowed over spearmen because I had the tech lead.

 

[Zhahz]

What do people think? Is there ever the opportunity to take out cities without having to resort to smashing down their defences with a huge stack of siege engines?

Sure it's possible, it just depends on circumstances. For example, you can take a city without siege if any one or more of these situations exist:

- You have a significant tech advantage
- City has no extra defense bonus from hills, walls, or decent culture build up
- City defenders aren't appropriate for your attackers
- City defenders aren't well promoted or have no promotions at all
- You are willing to suicide tons of units (usually not an option I pursue)

 

[gettingfat]

Anyone using Chu-ko-nu to siege and attack at once?

I use a lot. Although I always mix in 3 to 6 catapults and a couple of spears (or Elephants if available). They are city busters, and they keep promoting because at least half of them will survive since the enemy units in the city are all softened up after a few collaterals.

 

[shadow2k]

You can take cities at any time, you just have to be prepared for losses.

I tried playing Great Plains for the first time today, decided to start off on Monarch. I tried to take the English capital @ 40% culture with 6 CR2 swords, a couple pikes, an axe, and a handful of skirmishers. I'd already taken one city, which was really the only goal of the war...Christian Holy city, ended up with an Academy/Shrine in it as well, relieved culture pressure on one of my cities, and gained a couple resources. I came up one troop short of the capital after my 6CR swords all lost with 72-98% odds, leaving a .3 archer in the city.

The next turn, I had 3 very wounded troops, and they had moved 3 healthy horse archers into the city along with the archer who promoted. I had to sue for peace without the city or the tech I wanted, due to the vendictive RNG gods, so I *only* got the one city.

So...you can make some huge gains by attacking early. But you need to be prepared to take the losses that will inevitably come along with it. I was in a position where I really had nothing to build but military anyway in my core cities, so it didn't matter much...and the troops were costing me money. The war gave me more land and resources so I could grow, crippled my oppenent, and allowed me to raise science by lowering unit cost. And when the city I did capture came out of resistance, the shrine/academy boosted me into the lead.

I actually built the Pyramids as well, which I never do, so it's not like I sold out for early war either. I think I had 6 cities, was doing well in tech, etc...

You definitely don't need cats. But they help. Especially with the horribly high WW you get for losing attackers during war. Part of why I am very hesitant to suicide cats anymore.