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

What if walled city attacks were removed entirely?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Dustbrother, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM.

  1. Dustbrother

    Dustbrother Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    What if walled city attacks were removed entirely but were left on encampments?

    -On higher levels you wouldn't have to fight in the gaps between cities because your rival is one era ahead of you.
    -The AI might actually stand a chance of being a domination threat with the huge armies they now build. Currently the AI armies are just wall fodder in the mid to late game.

    I think it would make the game a hell of a lot more dynamic. It would be great to have this as an option in game setup. In my mind the game really suffers from OP city defenses.
     
  2. iammaxhailme

    iammaxhailme Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,044
    Honestly, as someone who constantly bounces between civ 5 and 6, I think cities are a little too easy to capture in 6. Or maybe too hard to capture in 5? But I don't think city defenses are OP in 6.
     
    Tech Osen likes this.
  3. Dustbrother

    Dustbrother Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair play. I think the thing I have a problem with is the era scaling on the defenses.. It's probably correct on an even playing field but if you're even a single era behind it's rock solid. Especially when you hit modern era.

    Also when do you ever see a civ conquer another civ in the mid to late game? It never happens for me.
     
  4. Melliores

    Melliores Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2018
    Messages:
    92
    Gender:
    Male
    As I see it, the ranged attack is to avoid the situation of camping with a single siege unit in the early eras, thus only assigning one per army and speeding a lot any potential conquest. In the Modern Era you will need Aircraft to battle 3+ range siege units, however that is another issue in of itself.

    On the topic of conquest in the Modern, the AI does do some conquering if you manage to break the exist balance of alliances and accords that settles around the Renaissance era. Once some wars break around Emergencies you can be sure that someone will lose quite a few cities. :)
     
  5. iammaxhailme

    iammaxhailme Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,044
    Definitely more in civ 6 than in civ 5. But maybe it's loyalty flipping, idk.

    Although I am usually playing on Emperor. Maybe they capture more on diety?
     
  6. Lily_Lancer

    Lily_Lancer Warlord

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,425
    Location:
    Berkeley,CA
    If you're an era behind then you shall not be able to Dom another more advanced Civ.

    If you're an era ahead then your dom will be very easy.

    I like this design.

    In fact in Civ6 cities are harder to capture than in Civ5, however in Civ5 when you capture a city you may face serious negative effects but on Civ6 it's nearly always positive effect on your Civ to capture a city.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2019 at 12:23 AM
    Uberfrog and acluewithout like this.
  7. Dustbrother

    Dustbrother Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Cool cool. I agree with the principle, I just think the tech jumps are super drastic.
     
  8. ChocolateShake

    ChocolateShake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    525
    Gender:
    Male
    I definitely think cities shouldn't be able to defend themselves. City defenses take a lot of tension out of having to defend your civ. I'd like to see the ranged attack either removed, or only have 1 range.

    It seems the defenses were seen as needed when 1 UPT was added, but I don't think they add much to the game in return for how much harder it is now to run a sneak attack on a city.
     
  9. Beaver79

    Beaver79 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Messages:
    173
    If they made it so walls couldn't attack warfare would be even easier than it is right now. You could send 1 catapult or 1 bombard against a walled city and just shoot it down with no worry. If you try that now your cat/bombard will die in 2 to 3 hits. That's why war is so easy when artillery come into play. A corp of artillery can take 4 or 5 hits and can almost take a wall down before it has to retreat. You could also just melee down the walls and heal up without having to retreat.

    For the AI attacking your cities it wouldn't make much difference. They would happily ram themselves into your walls killing themselves in the process. The problem is the AI is too dumb to take down a walled city.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  10. tetley

    tetley Head tea leaf

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    2,930
    Location:
    Igloovik
    Cities should have defenses. That's how old-style war is.
     
  11. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    9,822
    If wanting to Dom you have to push campuses to get ahead
     
  12. ChocolateShake

    ChocolateShake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2016
    Messages:
    525
    Gender:
    Male
    Although it's not in the same genre, I think I'd like to see the same sort of circle that happens with games like Age of Empires 2 (yes I'm that old :D). Siege units can chip away at a castle or town center while being outside of its range. The defending player either has to work on taking out the siege with cavalry or their own siege weapons, or has to fully engage the army laying the siege.

    I'm not sure why it was decided that city attacks should be able to reach out so far, and be so effective. Having to actively garrison cities you wanted to defend seemed to be more challenging. If you got disorganized like I did you might end up with a sneaky AI leading their lone unit and capturing a city ;)
     
  13. Depravo

    Depravo Siring Bastards

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,224
    Location:
    England
    One little thing that always niggled me was how when you capture, then immediately raze a city you get all the CS quest bonus envoys for having 'built' any or all of the districts that belonged to the city you just destroyed.

    'Hey, we wanted you to BUILD a place to honour the gods, but you brutally pillaged and then destroyed someone else's and that's good enough for us!'
     
    Timewarp likes this.
  14. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    763
    Maybe from an "AI doesn't really know how to handle it" perspective, it makes sense. The mechanic itself is fine although I have a small gripe with how the strength of cities are determined generally. I think it should be the population+number of tiles owned+extra bonuses (like walls, capital palace, some wonders etc.)

    Just beelining knights and then having all your cities immediately get the same strength is just odd and it's a little gimmicky.
     
  15. WillowBrook

    WillowBrook Lurker

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,052
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Maybe limit the city attack range to one tile. Then you'd need a ranged unit in the city to attack siege units from inside city.

    Of course, there's always the good ole days of requiring a unit in the city to have any defense...
     

Share This Page