Tip to get rid of counters to your units

[Axxon]

I was stuck in a war with Bismarck on deity. I was going full companions while Bismarck was spamming the landsknechte. Things were going nowhere.

Here's a tip: take an AI city, but leave it wide open. Station your horses 2 squares away from the city. The AI will take the city again, stationing one of the nerby landsknetchs. Then you can attack the city again, and the landsknecht will lose all its defensive bonuses. It's quite silly, but a unit stationed in a city only adds a bit of defense to the city itself, so a proper counter unit is much less effective when inside a city. It was much easier to attack the cities with the unit inside than to attack the landsknechte outside head on.

Plus you get some bonus gold for taking the city over a few more times. With proper positioning and constant healing, you can soak up a lot of beefed up promoted units with minimal losses.

 

[IgnatiusTBarfat]

It's quite silly, but a unit stationed in a city only adds a bit of defense to the city itself, so a proper counter unit is much less effective when inside a city.

Woah. For real? If so, you are right, this is quite silly.

 

[Jakub92344]

That is true, unfortunately. Once lost my veteran unit this way

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Indeed, I can verify that this happens. Units inside cities that get taken do not properly defend themselves and the AI isn't uberbright about planning for that.

 

[milk steak]

A similar thing I noticed is that the AI -loves- (re)capturing workers and you can use them as bait.

I was in a war and took a worker on a flatland position. I left the worker there and moved my military units into defensive positions next to the flatland. The AI would send his troops to retake his worker, leaving himself wide open, flanked by all my units. I'd attack the troop and retake the worker and move back into a defensive position leaving the worker as bait. Worked great and I took down an entire civilization's army doing this.

 

[Rathelon]

Units that garrison a city add their health to the city's defense.

 

[Spatzimaus]

It's quite silly, but a unit stationed in a city only adds a bit of defense to the city itself, so a proper counter unit is much less effective when inside a city.

Conversely, a bombardment unit like Archers, stationed in a city, are a pain to deal with since they'd get slaughtered in the open field. Cho-ku-nos (or whatever their name is) are especially painful for this; if he focuses fire (city plus all bombardments) on a single unit, it becomes pretty common to lose an undamaged attacking unit in the interturn.
I've actually delayed declaring war on a civ for a couple turns until I could be sure of catching his archers outside the cities, because it was just too painful otherwise.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Heh... in my late game, my mechanized infantry was pretty much vulnerable in cities, which had around 30 in combat strength. That's far less then mechanized infantry combat rating of 50 (which is even more on good terrain or if fortified).

Units that garrison a city add their health to the city's defense.

Nope, they just slightly increase city combat rating.

 

[player1 fanatic]

double

 

[nodule]

I kind of like the fact that you are encouraged to station ranged units in cities. Of course, for it to work the ai will have to take it into account, and mounted probably need a city attack penalty

 

[Lyoncet]

Units that garrison a city add their health to the city's defense.

Just to clarify player1 fanatic's post, yes, the number over the city (strength) goes up when you garrison, but 1) the city won't get the 100% bonus against your horses that the landsknecht would, 2) the city will be at half health when it gets taken back, and 3) a garrisoned unit dies when its city is taken. Plus, city strength is usually not that big of a deal if it's already been taken once, since it loses its walls/castles/military bases etc. So it's much easier to take down a landsknecht that would be strength 20 against your strength 14 companions if you let it garrison itself is the point.

 

[PickledDictator]

this is a major flaw, sure they will patch this to make taking cities more difficult. I think its clever what you have done don't get me wrong, I just think it sucks that this is so easy to do.

 

[eric_]

I don't think the fact that melee units are stronger in the field is a flaw. I think it makes sense (how is a garrisoned pikeman going to do much against a horseman, for instance, especially if a city has walls?). I do think the AI's apparent disregard for this fact is a flaw, though.

If you surround your city with strong, non-ranged units, put a ranged unit in the city, and some more behind the city and your melee troops, an enemy will have a hard time getting through.

Personally, I love the tactical choices you are forced to make in CiV, both on offense and defense.

 

[Pantastic]

I don't think the fact that melee units are stronger in the field is a flaw. I think it makes sense (how is a garrisoned pikeman going to do much against a horseman, for instance, especially if a city has walls?).

Realistically, they're going to absolutely destroy the horsemen. Horses are not exactly known for their ability to use ladders or grapples to scale walls, so even getting in is rough for them. Cavalry charges don't work well through narrow holes and across the rubble of a destroyed wall, and even after the breach the cavalry can't maneuver to hit a flank because of the buildings in the way.

There is no way that the pikemen are worse off facing horsemen in a city than on an open field.

 

[eric_]

Realistically, they're going to absolutely destroy the horsemen. Horses are not exactly known for their ability to use ladders or grapples to scale walls, so even getting in is rough for them.

It's true that horses are essentially useless against walled cities in reality, but what are the pikemen gonna do? Stand on top of the walls and jab at the tops of the horsemen running around below? They'd be sitting ducks for archers. Their advantage over horses is completely useless when they're garrisoned in a walled city with horses outside

Cavalry charges don't work well through narrow holes and across the rubble of a destroyed wall, and even after the breach the cavalry can't maneuver to hit a flank because of the buildings in the way.

True, they'd have a hard time getting through a breach in a wall if pikemen were amassed at the opening.

There is no way that the pikemen are worse off facing horsemen in a city than on an open field.

Pikemen work best when lined up against horses charging across open space towards an amassed army, not when they horsemen are running around the narrow streets of a city where they're movements will be less unified and less predictable. Obviously such a scenario is most likely in an unwalled city, or one with severely damaged walls. A horseman running around the streets of a city could cause a lot of damage, and a pikeman would have a hard time attaining a tactical advantage without cornering the horseman and goading him into a charge.

Now, what is unrealistic right now is how effective horses are at attacking a walled city. They should be borderline incapable of doing so prior to extensive siege attacks. Meanwhile, if the horses are in range, garrisoned archers would have a field day. Pikemen should be out in the field preventing their infantry from being flanked.

 

[}{ELL/\/()]

conversely, plan out your opponents and any UU's they have that counter yours and hit them either before or after they come into play. There really arent that many counters in the game because the 1UPT makes it more positional based.

 

[Celevin]

Horses are not exactly known for their ability to use ladders or grapples to scale walls, so even getting in is rough for them

I just have to say that this is the best sentence I have read on these forums to date. Everyone else including me, stop trying. We've all lost.

 

[Pantastic]

It's true that horses are essentially useless against walled cities in reality, but what are the pikemen gonna do? Stand on top of the walls and jab at the tops of the horsemen running around below? They'd be sitting ducks for archers. Their advantage over horses is completely useless when they're garrisoned in a walled city with horses outside

We were discussing horsemen taking a city defended by pikemen, not pikemen sitting on the walls of a city being shot at by archers while the horsemen play polo outside. Horsemen attacking a city (which is what we were discussing) defended by any infantrymen would be at a significant disadvantage over normal, and at an even bigger disadvantage against a city defended by infantrymen armed with weapons specifically designed to counter a cavalry charge. Pikes actually work better when the horses are forced to go down one narrow path and can't even try to flank, I'm not sure where you got the idea that pikes require an open field to function.

It makes no sense for pikemen defending a city to be easier prey for horsemen than pikemen defending an open field.

 

[eric_]

We were discussing horsemen taking a city defended by pikemen, not pikemen sitting on the walls of a city being shot at by archers while the horsemen play polo outside.

My point is, if walls affected city siege in a realistic way, that's pretty much what would be happening if the city had no ranged combat capability. The horses would be useless but unmolested unless the pikemen stepped outside the gates.

Pikes actually work better when the horses are forced to go down one narrow path and can't even try to flank, I'm not sure where you got the idea that pikes require an open field to function.

I never said they are non-functional in a narrow path, I said in city streets (which by no means are accurately described as a single, narrow path - it's more like a chaotic web) it would be significantly harder for pikemen to get into position against a marauding horse.

This is utterly unlike in a field full of amassed infantry that the horses are trying to attack (one target with a cavalry charging at them as a group) or a single breach in a wall (which is more like the narrow path you mentioned).

 

[wurstburst]

A similar thing I noticed is that the AI -loves- (re)capturing workers and you can use them as bait.

I was in a war and took a worker on a flatland position. I left the worker there and moved my military units into defensive positions next to the flatland. The AI would send his troops to retake his worker, leaving himself wide open, flanked by all my units. I'd attack the troop and retake the worker and move back into a defensive position leaving the worker as bait. Worked great and I took down an entire civilization's army doing this.

Reminds me of the light grenade in "Mom and Dad Save the World".