Make Cities Weaker

[Raneman]

How is it that a city with no military takes an entire army 10 turns to take? It's absurd.

The best part is when you leave for about 4 turns and the city has regened more then half it's health back.

 

[Strategia]

Bring siege units. Keep up the pressure. The whole point of besieging a fortified location is to wear down the defenders; this is the same in Civ V, just keep attacking it and don't move away for 4 turns. Or if you do, make sure you return with a fresh army, and ALWAYS attack cities with siege units.

 

[Nevyn]

I'd like to see the exact opposite. Make it much harder to take a city. 4 longswords can take a city in one or two turns without siege units. Later only 3 mech infantry with 1 artillery can take a city in one turn. And bombers are way too powerful.

I think taking cities should take many turns and also require you to scarify more troops. Having your entire army survive taking a city with further promotions just making them stronger for the next city, and the next city, and the next; makes it all too easy.

 

[Bergerperson]

And bombers are way too powerful

Well human history is filled with people making new things to kill each other faster. The bomber and high explosive bombs are one of them.

 

[Nyanko]

Bombers get fairly weak in the modern era, before Stealths. Had six, logistics promoted 3 ranked city raider bombers which only managed to get the Arab capital down enough for a paratrooper to take the city after 2 turns. Each bombing run took 2 points off the city, 4 points off my precious bombers.

 

[Atwork]

I'd like to see the exact opposite

Agreed. I think a defender should be able to convert citizens to "City Defenders," each of whom would boost city defense by 2 points. The penalty would of course be that you're not working tiles, possibly placing the city in starvation. If a city was population 12, you could take the 12 workers off tiles and place them into city defense, yielding +24 city defense--but obviously the city would be dying rapidly.

I think all units inside of a city should be treated as garrisoned, i.e. increase the city defense rating--even if the unit is not garrisoned per se.

I also think that a conquering army should have to defeat any unit inside of the city. In other words, once the city defenses are down, the attacking army must still defeat the army inside the city, just the same as any other battle. And, the defending unit should receive +25% defense of city bonus.

A player should be allowed to garrison 2 units in a city. That way he/she could garrison 1 melee unit (to attack and to defend) & garrison 1 ranged unit.

Cities should act as a citadel, i.e. all adjacent enemy units should lose hit points per turn.

More city defense buildings should be available.

As it is, cities may take some time to conquer, but they really can't put up much of a fight as far as actually killing units. I'd rather see a properly improved and defended city be able to dish out severe losses--turning back whole hoards of armies. Think Constantinople.

 

[FeiLing]

Oligarchy + an Archer/Crossbowman/etc makes a city pretty much unbreakable at same tech level no matter how many units you bring as they'll kill two units of you per turn - also artillery (okay, AI may fail to do so, but you can do it to the AI) unless it's blessed with range3 (Artillery).

I think it's well balanced if the tech level of both parties is the same. If the defender is ahead, the attacker is screwed though unless the defender is totally unprepared. Unfortunately on higher difficulties the AI will be ahead pretty soon techwise over you. At the AI often doesn't use it's teched unit advantage on the offensive as good as it was possible, so a human still can defend if well prepared - at least until he falls behind another era to that AI at which point he'll suddenly fall within 3 turns were he defended for 80 turns before somewhat easily.

PS: With the nerf of the Instaheal promotion (I believe it might be toned down to 50% with G&K, not sure though) taking a city should become quite a bit harder.

 

[shaglio]

More city defense buildings should be available.

This just popped into my head:

Burning Oil
Allows the city to make an additional attack per turn, but with a range of 1

As for Maintenance cost, Production cost, and Tech availablilty, I'll leave that up to the more game-balance oriented minds than myself (if anybody even cares for my idea).

 

[shaglio]

Another thought I had is that the City Attack range should increase to 3 at some point. Maybe when Artillery come into the game since they’re the first 3 range unit. So you’d have a 3 range siege unit and a 3 range anti-siege city attack to counter it.

 

[Strategia]

Burning Oil
Allows the city to make an additional attack per turn, but with a range of 1

I think something like Citizen Militia might work instead, probably appearing somewhere in the Renaissance era because that's when resourceless siege appears. Or maybe create a new type of specialist, Militia, for which you get 1 slot per defence building (or maybe only starting from Castle or Arsenal onward), which doesn't provide any yield (and doesn't benefit from increased specialist yield through policies, if possible) but gives the city 1 additional ranged attack per Militia.

As for why Citizen Militia instead of Burning Oil; dropping oil from the walls is only effective if you have a vertical wall with an enemy attacking the base, i.e. medieval castles and ancient fortifications. During the late fifteenth century, artillery fortresses started appearing that had low, angled walls instead of sheer vertical ones, to better resist cannon fire while allowing defenders to punish any rash attack with a withering cannon crossfire. Hot oil no longer had any real use as a defensive weapon.

 

[Atwork]

create a new type of specialist, Militia, for which you get 1 slot per defence building (or maybe only starting from Castle or Arsenal onward), which doesn't provide any yield (and doesn't benefit from increased specialist yield through policies...

I like this idea a lot. Call them Militia or Citizen Defense....whatever. I like it.

city 1 additional ranged attack per Militia

Could get very OPed unless limited by number of slots, i.e. 3 slots or so. IMO defense buildings should offer additional ranged attacks.

City Attack range should increase

Agreed.

 

[Nyanko]

More city defense buildings should be available.

Ground Based SAM units would be good as a defensive building, increases the damage against flying units attacking a city.

I think the Militia idea is wonderful and with a bit of working out, could easily fit into expansion 2; Have it as a specialist, earning great general (or admiral) points. Instead of generating Food, Culture or Commerce, they should generate happiness (through repression) as well as add the suggested more attacks per specialist. However to make things fair, they only get that extra attack if they were a militia specialist at the begining of your turn. Else whats to stop you from moving all your scientists over to your walls when a foe comes into site?

Say only buildings like the Castle, Arsenal, Military Base (and possibly Military Academy?) can grant these militia units. Wonders such as the Great Wall or the Pentagon or Hijimi's Castle could grant a free Militia specialist, or completing the Honour tree could give you a free militia specialist in your first four cities or something.

I think the Militia idea is something that can be worked on

 

[awesome]

i think extra range/attacks should come with a tech or something, not just how many militia specialists you have. or maybe you get one extra attack for every 3 militia specialists. i do like the idea of giving the city +2 defense per specialist, though.
i also agree with the city defense bonus for units and the making the invading army beat the unit, too. it adds to the slower combat direction the game is taking now.
or you could always bring back settling great people in cities and the great general can add defense.

 

[Strategia]

I think what you're missing in my suggestion is that there should only be 1 Militia slot per defence building, perhaps excluding Walls and maybe Castle as well. That'd give a maximum of 5 attacks for a built-up, well-defended city in the Modern Era, when you'd need them most.

I don't think adding Happiness to Militia is a good idea, although it could be done through a social policy (modifying Professional Army would seem like the most obvious choice, and might actually boost Tall empires over Wide ones that can't spare pop for specialists that easily). I also don't know about Great General/Admiral points, Great Generals provide a lasting bonus when alive as opposed to other GPs who get consumed whenever they're used, so allowing players to passively generate GGs might get a bit overpowered. Especially if you consider the likes of China or Mongolia. China especially could become way too powerful if they're swimming in their buffed GGs, from their own spawn rate bonus and Militia points.

Wonders giving free Militia is an idea, I specifically avoided mentioning it initially to keep the idea simple but it's really quite an obvious addition. Like Nyanko said, wonders like Himeji Castle and the Great Wall would be perfect for it. A National Wonder (Military Headquarters?) could be added that gives +1/+2 Militia slots after building an Arsenal or Military Base in all Cities. Certain civs could also get Militia bonuses through UBs or UAs; I could see e.g. Ethiopia getting a unique Wall/Castle replacement that has 1 Militia slot.

 

[Atwork]

Militia...as a specialist, earning great general (or admiral) points

On first glance, I like this idea. But, on another level, I don't. Pressing ordinary citizens into an emergency defense role should not create specialists in the form of generals or admirals. I'm not sure that taking a shovel from a worker and giving him a rifle should automatically lead to increased GG points--GG points are earned from military victories; not from merely taking emergency action. However, possibly a new specialist could be created--"National Inspiration" or something along those lines, which could give additional happiness or increased city defense rating.

generate happiness (through repression)

But, they're not repressing the people. They're emergency defense folks. Therefore, I don't think they should affect happiness, unless they were capable of reducing war weariness (which isn't presently a part of C5).

Ground Based SAM units

Sure, as opposed to being ground units. Or, create something called "City Air Defense." Puts up flak during the WWII era. Later upgraded to missile defense.

they only get that extra attack if they were a militia specialist at the begining of your turn. Else whats to stop you from moving all your scientists over to your walls when a foe comes into site?

A good reason why extra attacks should factor in from SPs, technology, and/or city buildings.

I really think that City Defenders should increase the defense rating only. Everything else can be factored in by other things (SPs, techs, buildings, etc). But that's just my opinion.

Wonders giving free Militia is an idea

I could go along with that. But, isn't this the same as just bumping up the city defense rating?

Giving additional slots is different though, because the player can choose to bump up the rating but at a cost....

 

[Strategia]

I could go along with that. But, isn't this the same as just bumping up the city defense rating?

Giving additional slots is different though, because the player can choose to bump up the rating but at a cost....

No, city defence rating is how much damage a city can withstand and how much damage it deals with its ranged attacks. Adding more Militia specialists gives it additional ranged attacks, like a Logistics promotion on an artillery unit. It doesn't allow cities to withstand more damage, but it allows them to fight back more effectively, and makes attacking larger, tougher cities a riskier prospect. Having a Militia specialist in a city could mean the difference between taking 3hp off of that attacking Longswordsman, which he'll patch up with an instaheal next turn before he takes the city, or shooting it twice and killing it, giving your city a bit of relief to heal. It makes siege units more important, rather than just ringing the enemy city with melee units and pounding away until it's yours.

 

[awesome]

I think what you're missing in my suggestion is that there should only be 1 Militia slot per defence building, perhaps excluding Walls and maybe Castle as well. That'd give a maximum of 5 attacks for a built-up, well-defended city in the Modern Era, when you'd need them most.

I don't think adding Happiness to Militia is a good idea, although it could be done through a social policy (modifying Professional Army would seem like the most obvious choice, and might actually boost Tall empires over Wide ones that can't spare pop for specialists that easily). I also don't know about Great General/Admiral points, Great Generals provide a lasting bonus when alive as opposed to other GPs who get consumed whenever they're used, so allowing players to passively generate GGs might get a bit overpowered. Especially if you consider the likes of China or Mongolia. China especially could become way too powerful if they're swimming in their buffed GGs, from their own spawn rate bonus and Militia points.

Wonders giving free Militia is an idea, I specifically avoided mentioning it initially to keep the idea simple but it's really quite an obvious addition. Like Nyanko said, wonders like Himeji Castle and the Great Wall would be perfect for it. A National Wonder (Military Headquarters?) could be added that gives +1/+2 Militia slots after building an Arsenal or Military Base in all Cities. Certain civs could also get Militia bonuses through UBs or UAs; I could see e.g. Ethiopia getting a unique Wall/Castle replacement that has 1 Militia slot.

if you mean me, i saw it. i don't think five attacks per turn is a good idea. i'd max it out at 3.

 

[Atwork]

No

Sorry. Mixed ideas.

I promote the idea of extra attacks being rewarded for SPs (oligarchy gives +1, right?) and city defense buildings. I don't like the idea of city defenders giving extra attacks.

i'd max it out at 3

For purpose of balance, I agree. I think there should be a max of 3 possible city attacks. And I think a city should eventually be able to strike out to 3 tiles.

As far as city defenders are concerned, I think their purpose should be to add to the defense rating of a city, +2 per early on and increasing to maybe up to +5 per. Maybe the strength of each city defender grows +1 with each city defense improvement.

So, Walls give1 slot at +2 defense. Castle gives an additional slot for a total of two, each slot worth +3. Arsenal gives a third slot, each slot worth +4. And so on....

Probably the maximum number of city defenders should be capped. The cap number would depend on the amount that each generated in extra defense. For example if each defender gave +2, then maybe the cap would be 15 slots, since that would generate +30 defense, but that isn't as much as it sounds in the modern era.

On the other hand, if each defender became stronger depending on improvements and other factors, then perhaps 6 defenders would generate +30 defense, in which case maybe the cap should be around 6. But, in the modern era, moving 6 workers off of tiles to increase the city defense by +30 really doesn't hurt the city much while significantly upping its defense rating.

Maybe, city defenders could also add to the attack strength of a city (5% per).

 

[Strategia]

if you mean me, i saw it. i don't think five attacks per turn is a good idea. i'd max it out at 3.

That's why I said Walls shouldn't give Militia, and maybe Castle as well. That only leaves the Arsenal and Military Base with 1 slot each, for 3 attacks total, not counting wonders with free Militia slots.

I promote the idea of extra attacks being rewarded for SPs (oligarchy gives +1, right?) and city defense buildings. I don't like the idea of city defenders giving extra attacks.

Oligarchy doubles a city's ranged attack if it has a garrison. A City with a strong garrison and both Militia slots filled would be a tough nut to crack with Oligarchy. As for extra attacks coming from policies, I don't like that. That way, even a newly founded 1-pop city can attack multiple times per turn, and if you purchase a couple of defensive buildings, it instantly becomes incredibly powerful. Also, giving all cities extra ranged attacks this way would only make the current problem (okay, okay, calling it a "problem" might be a bit controversial, but that's how I see it) of ICS that much worse. From what I understand, one of the strengths of ICS is that cities can cover each other when they're under attack; giving all cities in your empire one or more extra attacks through social policies could turn ICS into an almost unassailable fortress, barring the use of GDRs and nukes, and I'm not entirely sure about the GDRs.

For purpose of balance, I agree. I think there should be a max of 3 possible city attacks. And I think a city should eventually be able to strike out to 3 tiles.

I don't think I said this before, but I wholeheartedly agree with giving cities a range of 3. Probably immediately with Dynamite, so (assuming a roughly equal tech advancement for all civs) you don't end up with a period where cities can outrange everything, if the range increase comes earlier, nor with a period where, like now, it's possible to shell cities into submission safely, if it comes later.

As far as city defenders are concerned, I think their purpose should be to add to the defense rating of a city, +2 per early on and increasing to maybe up to +5 per. Maybe the strength of each city defender grows +1 with each city defense improvement.

So, Walls give1 slot at +2 defense. Castle gives an additional slot for a total of two, each slot worth +3. Arsenal gives a third slot, each slot worth +4. And so on....

Probably the maximum number of city defenders should be capped. The cap number would depend on the amount that each generated in extra defense. For example if each defender gave +2, then maybe the cap would be 15 slots, since that would generate +30 defense, but that isn't as much as it sounds in the modern era.

I do kind of like this idea, but I don't know if a straight, minor defence rating increase merits a specialist on its own. Other specialists can significantly increase research speed, or gold income, or production; city defenders would give..... a small % increase in the city's defence rating. And 15 slots at +2 each is just completely useless - you'd be wasting 30 food for, as you point out, a relatively minor increase in city defence.

I could, however, see Militia providing a small increase to city strength like that in addition to the extra attacks. Since they'll only start appearing towards the end of the Renaissance Era (assuming only Arsenal and Military Base get Militia slots, not counting Wonders), and there'll be only two per city maximum (again, not counting Wonders), I could see them providing maybe +4 or +5 each, for +10 and two extra attacks. Alternatively, Militia on their own don't provide a strength bonus, or only +2 or +3, but certain techs (Nationalism would be a good one, Radar maybe) and social policies (Oligarchy, Military Caste/Professional Army, Universal Suffrage) could increase it. That way, they'd still only provide up to 2 extra attacks, but a focused Tall empire would reap more benefits from them, with social policies geared towards their style.

 

[Atwork]

The reason I'm not a big fan of having the number of attacks tied to the number of citizen defenders is two fold:

First, as was pointed out--there's the issue of needing to have the city defenders in place before you end your previous turn, otherwise, as was already asked, 'what's to stop a person from just converting all their citizens over to defenders right before beginning city attack?' I think this will be a headache in practical terms.....it will require a player to remember to go into his city and rearrange citizens before he ends his turn and then rearrange them after his turn....and back and forth. In practical terms, I don't like the effect on gameplay. I also don't like the prospect of reloading the game because the player had an oversight and forgot to move citizens into defense slots.

On the other hand, if the number of attacks is tied to building construction and (maybe but not necessarily) to SPs, then the player never needs to worry about moving citizens into defensive slots. The player will always know that his city has 1, 2, or 3 attacks.

The player will only have to worry about moving citizens into defense slots if it is apparent that he is being faced with force that city attacks alone cannot handle. Also, a player would be able to move citizens into defense slots as need be, and it would be the same as garrisoning a unit now....move the citizen into a defense slot and the effect is immediate. End your turn and move on.

I think the color of defense rating number, which appears above the city, should change if city defender slots are being used--to remind the player so that the player isn't using slots needlessly because he forgot.

Second, if number of attacks is tied to defender slots, then the attacking player will be unable to predict what extent of city defense he will face. Whereas, if the number of city attacks is tied to visible buildings (especially), then the attacker will know from looking at the city how many attacks it has. If the attacker sees that the city has built a castle, then he will know that the city has two attacks. And so on....

I do kind of like this idea, but I don't know if a straight, minor defence rating increase merits a specialist on its own. Other specialists can significantly increase research speed, or gold income, or production; city defenders would give..... a small % increase in the city's defence rating.

These citizen defenders are not specialists. They are emergency conscripts. They are citizens who have been pressed (or volunteer) to fight for their city.

Note that raising the city's defense rating also has the effect of raising the city's attack strength (right?). Thus, the city can hold off an attack longer and inflict more damage, but at a cost of lost growth and production, which makes sense because instead of manning fields and mines, the citizens are manning walls/castles/armories, and dying in skirmishes against the attackers.

a small % increase in the city's defence rating...is just completely useless...a relatively minor increase in city defence.

Balance is the key here. Obviously it would take some playing around to figure out a good balance between increased defense, cost to defending city, and burden on the agressor. But, I do think a good balance could be reached.

Again, note that the benefit isn't just city defense, but also a boost to city attack. But, if I'm wrong about that, then it could be that each city defender increases city attack by 5% or something.

I will say this though---if the balance were slightly weighted in favor of more slots at lesser increased defense rating, then the player would have to move more citizens over to defense, which in turn would raise the cost to the city, which in turn would lead to some very interesting siege warfare. Literally, an attacking army could adopt the strategy of trying to absorb the damage and minimize losses in exchange for starving the city into surrender. At this time, this strategy doesn't exist.

With this system in place, possibly we could do away with the built in mechanic of half the population being killed by taking a city--with this system, there may be a lot of circumstances where half the population died in defense of the city, therefore the aggressor simply takes the city as is.

even a newly founded 1-pop city can attack multiple times per turn, and if you purchase a couple of defensive buildings, it instantly becomes incredibly powerful. Also, giving all cities extra ranged attacks this way would only make the current problem

It would makes sense that a city that has constructed the most powerful available defense systems would be able to utilize such technology right out of the gate. To minimize this happening though, simply raise the cost of the buildings similar to how the devs have played around with the cost of happiness buildings and courthouses etc.

Also, more attacks doesn't translate to more strong attacks, since the strength of the attacks has other factors involved, such as population. Also, with only one population, a player couldn't take advantage of the slots available for extra defenders. So, I doubt there could be a situation where a 1 population city, standing alone, could be very powerful even with the most modern defense technology.

Besides, if this became a problem, then the devs would simply need to increase the importance of population number in determining attack strength of a city.