Swordsman better than archer in a city

[Miravlix]

During a battle I decided to switch from having a swordsman stationed in my city to a composite bowman, but I lost city defense rating in the exchange.

The city is 23 defense with the swordman in it, but 21 with the composite bowman.

Since I just noticed and as you can see from the units mentioned it's a bit early, I'm just guessing it's unit melee strength that buffs city defense.

Might have been true of vanilla Civ 5, but since everything died to that one archer back then I never noticed.

BTW: A hurt unit buff the city defense less than a full health unit.

 

[Shurdus]

PLacing an archer in a city was popular not because it raised city defence, but because you had another ranged attack to fend off attackers. A swordman can ofcourse attack units in the field, but should you kill a unit, the swordmen will take its place and be vulnerable to a counter attack. A ranged unit does not have this drawback.

 

[lordrune]

I honestly had no idea that this effect was there - I thought a garrison was just a garrison.
I'm still partial to putting ranged units in cities, but this gives me some pause. Especially if you have walls, city strength does make a difference after all.

 

[Miravlix]

Every time it does one of these sneak attacks, it drowns your city in units, units that is at least going to get some hits in on that city until you can respond and move an army in to fight back.

That means the amount of damage each unit takes attacking your city is going to be higher than what the one archer can do and that extra defense also mean you take less damage from ranged attacks.

It's going to suck the day your defense arrives a turn to late because you thought it would be better having a ranged unit in the city than going for max city defense value.

 

[AfterShafter]

Every time it does one of these sneak attacks, it drowns your city in units, units that is at least going to get some hits in on that city until you can respond and move an army in to fight back.

That means the amount of damage each unit takes attacking your city is going to be higher than what the one archer can do and that extra defense also mean you take less damage from ranged attacks.

It's going to suck the day your defense arrives a turn to late because you thought it would be better having a ranged unit in the city than going for max city defense value.

Mir, I'm interested in the idea, but, do you have some numbers to back this up? Exactly how much of a damage increase are we talking about with the swordsmen VS the composite bowman?

Usually I pick an archer because it lets me selectively target and focus fire the melee attacker units, hopefully crippling their city taking force before the city health gets too low. You can intelligently dismantle the vital units from a force this way, rather than just hoping they attack enough to put themselves out of commission. The ability to pick my targets and hit them on the way coming into the city, and increased focus firing power, seems priceless to me in this context - and let's not even mention coastal cities where the swordsman can't even attack an incoming boat. If there are *significant* defensive damage bonuses for having a swordsman in there, maybe, but as it stands, the ability to selectively focus on threats as they approach is quite valuable, and a swordsman offers significantly less of that while costing more hammers, taking an iron, and taking out an important front line unit.

 

[Miravlix]

I was explaining the concept of having up to six units all take X damage more and the city taking X damage less.

The other poster didn't seem to understand the difference between higher defense vs a ranged unit stationed.

I did not intend to imply that 23 defense vs 21 + archer was more or less damage to the attacking units. I only intended to imply that the town would take less total damage with a swordsman in it and that might be the difference between it surviving one turn more.

Unless your fighting Japan it gets to be a really big deal that the units attacking takes more damage + the town taking less, because the next attack will be even less damage than it would have been with the archer.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Archers can attack an extra turn out, though, which is also useful. For example, a city and an archer can take out a ranged unit when a city alone can't.

 

[prince_caspian]

I find switching between melee and ranged garrisons as striking a very good balance. During the early turns of a siege when you have enemy units next to your city, attacking with your melee unit first then follow with ranged attacks almost always kills it in that turn. The melee unit definitely will not kill a full-health unit if attacking first so it will not come out of the city. Works very effective in counter-unit situations eg, pikes vs knights or swords vs catapults. Then bring out the melee and garrison the range when they start to retreat.

 

[Maktaka]

Ranged units are always better in cities. The extra defense from having the melee unit in there (which is only a portion of the strength difference, not the full amount) is piddling compared to the ability to have the garrisoned unit attack the besieging units without waiting to heal two out of three turns.

 

[Aoxomoxoa]

I find switching between melee and ranged garrisons as striking a very good balance. During the early turns of a siege when you have enemy units next to your city, attacking with your melee unit first then follow with ranged attacks almost always kills it in that turn. The melee unit definitely will not kill a full-health unit if attacking first so it will not come out of the city. Works very effective in counter-unit situations eg, pikes vs knights or swords vs catapults. Then bring out the melee and garrison the range when they start to retreat.

This for the win! I often will play swap the garrison between an archer and melee.

 

[SlithyTove]

Archer is better hands down imo. He can start doing damage when the enemy is spotted and when it is running away. You often get several shots in before the real siege even beings. You can finish off more units so they don't have a chance to heal. You don't risk accidentally killing a unit with your swordsman and leaving the city ungarrisoned.

Most importantly though, an archer can hit cats/trebs and killing siege as quickly as possible is the key to surviving.

 

[Barghaest]

All of my cities tend to have multiple defenders (based on size and location... usually get the second one at 2 and a third at 6 then one last one at 14 - AA likely - beyond that I station fighters) because of this I routinely swap between ranged/melee units as garrison. I start with my melee - or cavalry/armor - in the field slowing down units while the archer shoots from the city when the city starts to get overwhelmed I pull the melee back into the city for the greater defense and do NOT attack out with him every chance (usually I might do a minor or greater victory that will not destroy the unit he attacks then finish it off with city if I attack out at all) because the whole point is for my actual field army (and nearby town defenders) to mobilize to save the city.

 

[pspboy7]

To quote a once famous Civ 2 advisor...
"Build city walls first and other improvements later!"
If you anticipate an early war that is. A castle wouldn't hurt either. Taking Oligarchy is also nice.