Poll: City Assault - Is it at a proper strength?

[Stalker0]

So a while ago the City Assault promotion for infantry was nerfed, mainly to reduce the strength of early game infantry pushes on cities.

So that change has been in a game for a while, and we want to confirm where people think it stands now.

Reminder: Current Promotion: (Requires Drill II) +33% CS to attack cities, +33% damage reduced from cities

Here are what the answers represent:

Just Right - the promotion is in a good and balanced place, no further changes needed.

Too Weak - The promotion could use some buffing.

Too Strong - The promotion is still too strong, and could use further nerfs.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

What was it before?

 

[andersw]

There are ofc way better warmongers than me but ...
I feel its useless unless I have a lot of defensive promos first.
Later, read fusiliers with cover2 and drill3, are tanky enough to actually use attacks and then there is a big difference betweeen city assault or not.
But mostly I feel I have to just fortify otherwise the melee guys just melts on emperor (and even more so on immortal).

So in a sense its a strong promo (especially on lower difficulties), but if I go straight for CA and use my melee offensive they are likely to just die, this isnt CA fault that is just .... human units take a lot of dmg from AI units because bonuses.

 

[stii]

I don't really ever want to attack cities with melee units so I guess it is probably a bit weak. But this is more a fundamental issue where the best way to take cities is generally to swarm them with archer units and just buffer with melee units. I'm not sure this is a real issue but pretty much no amount of city attack power is going to make me attack cities directly. You still need to sweep away all the AI units anyway unless you want lose a huge number of units taking every city.

 

[Gizmoman]

As I said when I brought this up, I did always find it kinda infuriating that it provides less actual city-attack than the normal drill promotion (35% vs 33%).
Like I said on the discord I'd suggest bumping the attack% up to 50% while keeping the less damage taken part at 33%(since that seemed to have been the overpowered part back when it was at 50%)

 

[Bruhmoment]

Why are people voting just right if they themselves admit they don't use it? Weird
Obviously it needs a buff, I rarely suicide my guys into cities anyway cause they always have it to their advantage.

 

[ridjack]

Y'all are seriously missing out by not using melee units to attack cities. It's not something you can do if you're still actively fighting off an army, but if you're at the point where you're able to blockade the city, smashing those six guys into the city can drastically speed up your conquests, especially as it's a TON of damage done to the garrison. Killing the garrison is probably the single quickest way to expedite a conquest, after blockading.

Seriously, play the Zulu and start smashing into cities with your spearmen and swordies. It's amazing, even completely ignoring the utter dominance that is the Impi.

I voted "Too Weak," because I actually think melee units should have some huge advantage to offset the associated risks, and I'm not sure City Assault does quite enough. Explicitly adding more damage against the garrison would do the job, in my opinion, and feels thematic. Siege units damage the city itself, melee units fight the army inside the city. As a complete spitball with no real thought put into it, I could see something like this working:

-50% damage to cities.
-50% damage taken when attacking cities.
+50% damage to garrisoned unit when attacking cities.

Again, just a spitball, I've put no thought into the numbers or anything. Just meant to communicate the concept.

 

[Bruhmoment]

Y'all are seriously missing out by not using melee units to attack cities. It's not something you can do if you're still actively fighting off an army, but if you're at the point where you're able to blockade the city, smashing those six guys into the city can drastically speed up your conquests, especially as it's a TON of damage done to the garrison. Killing the garrison is probably the single quickest way to expedite a conquest, after blockading.

Seriously, play the Zulu and start smashing into cities with your spearmen and swordies. It's amazing, even completely ignoring the utter dominance that is the Impi.

I voted "Too Weak," because I actually think melee units should have some huge advantage to offset the associated risks, and I'm not sure City Assault does quite enough. Explicitly adding more damage against the garrison would do the job, in my opinion, and feels thematic. Siege units damage the city itself, melee units fight the army inside the city. As a complete spitball with no real thought put into it, I could see something like this working:

-50% damage to cities.
-50% damage taken when attacking cities.
+50% damage to garrisoned unit when attacking cities.

Again, just a spitball, I've put no thought into the numbers or anything. Just meant to communicate the concept.

Well shaka is... Shaka - I won't even say any words about him, but I did try him out. Very fun spamming out fusiliers every 3 turns
I actually do attack with all 6 units if the city is blockaded. If my units are strong enough and the blockaders aren't ranged units, obviously

 

[Vhozite]

I personally thought City Assault was perfect pre-nerf. A lot of people viewed it as OP and I get why, but it actually made attacking cities with Melee feel good when I would typically rather use literally any other ground unit due to range or mobility.

At 33% I’m back to just using Melee as meat shields to protect my ranged that can attack more than twice without dying.

 

[andersw]

Y'all are seriously missing out by not using melee units to attack cities. It's not something you can do if you're still actively fighting off an army, but if you're at the point where you're able to blockade the city, smashing those six guys into the city can drastically speed up your conquests, especially as it's a TON of damage done to the garrison. Killing the garrison is probably the single quickest way to expedite a conquest, after blockading.

Seriously, play the Zulu and start smashing into cities with your spearmen and swordies. It's amazing, even completely ignoring the utter dominance that is the Impi.

I voted "Too Weak," because I actually think melee units should have some huge advantage to offset the associated risks, and I'm not sure City Assault does quite enough. Explicitly adding more damage against the garrison would do the job, in my opinion, and feels thematic. Siege units damage the city itself, melee units fight the army inside the city. As a complete spitball with no real thought put into it, I could see something like this working:

-50% damage to cities.
-50% damage taken when attacking cities.
+50% damage to garrisoned unit when attacking cities.

Again, just a spitball, I've put no thought into the numbers or anything. Just meant to communicate the concept.

It is strong but ... at the time I have my melee around a city its already over and weather I have CA or not doesnt matter.
I can sometimes have one or two that can attack at a certain stage and CA then helps a lot but it still pales compared to siege/range.

 

[stii]

Taking a city a few turns earlier once you've already killed all the surrounding units seems win more. Five of those melee units could have been archers and it doesn't take that long for 10 archer units to knock down a city, you can also move up more siege units if the city is this safely controlled.