1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Unit Garrison idea

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Bandit17, Oct 13, 2010.

  1. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    City defenses feel rather weak overall. I have played with Ghandi and built up 70+ defenses only to see insta-healed riflemen breach their defenses with ease. I have taken a new city with my mech infy only to have the city fall the next turn to a beat up riflemen! So my suggestion is to help slow down rushes and to add more meaning to walls and castles is not only to nerf the insta-heals but to give the unit in garrison the ability to fight, as it would be if normally attacked, prior to the city falling. This unit, if infantry based, should also get a major defense bonus for it's urban terrain.

    So in theory, when the city in question reaches the point of collapse the city defenses cease to play a role and the defense is handed over to the unit garrisoned. This would slow down rushes, make defensive buildings a little more worthwhile and put importance on the units garrisoned. What do you think?
     
  2. SkepticalSinner

    SkepticalSinner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    I agree, I think a garrisoned unit (Not a ranged unit who's just sitting and sniping) should give the city a real buff to attack, defense, health and heal per turn.

    The AI also needs to Garrison key cities better (and also defend them!)
     
  3. gunter

    gunter King

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2002
    Messages:
    790
    I agree that the AI is weak on defending cities but if the AI acted like a human it would be pretty impossible to attack a city with success.
     
  4. poncratias

    poncratias Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    336
    I think we have found the best solution for this problem:

    "Units per garrison-building stack"
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389787


    What if you could stack units in cities, but you need to build special buildings to do so?

    For example: 1 Barrack could host 1 Unit.


    So you could build multiple barracks, raising the unit capacity +1 for each.
    This is also kind of realistic, as you need a place/building where your troops can stay in real life too.
    The same could work for Airports/Airfields.

    It doesn't have to be the barracks building, just as an example, name it what ever you like

    This would also enhance the rest of the Civ V gameplay greatly in return:
    Empires would spread out more, as there is an important reason for building cities etc.

    This also would not lead to defensive Stacks of Doom, as you can only stack as many units as you have buildings/space for them, and this buildings can be expensive and take a while to build.

    So no too big stacks, no overpowering!
     
  5. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    I like the idea on barracks and stacks in cities but I still think a simpler approach is to have the garrisoned unit fight prior to the city defense collapse. It should be easy to implement and it would solve a problem I keep running into where I let the enemy take a city so I can counter-attack so I can kill the enemy unit w/out actually fighting it (works really well with cs's as you also get a free cs ally after you liberate their city and kill the unit inside). It just seams really silly that the garrison adds a generic # to the defense of the city but really is wasted as it could do more good, in the games current state, outside of the city. Several times I have thought to myself "please just stay in the city you evil swordsman" and bam! City and unit gone... If I had to fight and kill that swordsman prior to the city falling it would add a little more difficulty to the game and slow down offensives.
     
  6. jaldaen

    jaldaen Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    467
    Why not have it the opposite way? enemy units attack the city's defenses first, then once they are gone they have to defeat the unit inside the city. Wouldn't this be more like real life where after breaking through a city's walls you still had to defeat the garrison inside? Right now you auto-kill the garrison, but what if that wasn't the case?
     
  7. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    That's what I am arguing for here. That once the defenses have collapsed and prior to the total city surrender you have to fight the unit in the city to achieve capture. As it is all the game rules benefit the attacker and not the defender. The unit in the city is nothing more than a generic number. With these current rules Stalingrad would've fallen in Hitler's fall campaign. But you have to fight the troops!!! The fact that units can insta-heal and the city defenses cannot gives great benefit to the attackers.
     
  8. Grimberht

    Grimberht Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Québec
    This idea is great... the vanishing of garrison units is a very broken mechanic.
     
  9. glaivemaster

    glaivemaster Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    472
    Location:
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    I think this is a great idea. I can see what they're going for with the "moving the battles to the fields" style of play, but it just doesn't seem to be like that at the moment; I think partially because of the open terrain modifier (complained of in another thread) and the fact that cities fall so quickly that you never really have a chance to fight in the fields. Garrisons have always seemed so weak in a city, and wasted, and I think thats the intention, but it just doesn't work sadly
     

Share This Page