What is optimal number of units to conquer a city?

[SupremacyKing2]

In my experience, with 1upt, the old adage is true: less is more. You don't want to have too many units because then they just block each other from moving. So what is the best/optimal number of units needed to take a city? And what units do you use?

I would say no more than 5 units if you are going up against a walled city. Something like 2 swordsman, 1 archer and 1 catapult is right. After nationalism, when you get armies and corps, no more than 3 "armies". Say 2 infantry armies and 1 artillery army is good in the modern era. Am I right?

 

[Kryxal]

That seems awfully thin if you run into any real opposition. Given a good position, you could probably wear down an attack and counter, but you can't possibly have units covering your flanks. Also, unless you have expert crew or an attached balloon, you're sure to take hits getting arty into position from the walls.

 

[Ludvig]

Three or four horse units and a siege tower has been enough for me assuming your units are upgraded enough to be slightly above the city in strength.

I think it depends on several factors.

 

[Hactar]

I’ve taken a city state with two archers and a scout. However that may not be optimal in the Information Era.

I guess my point is that the answer will vary widely depending on city strength, terrain, units defending, what units you have available to attack etc.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

One thing to keep in mind is that each friendly neighbour unit add a support bonus of +2 if your unit comes under attack so having additional units may help keeping all your units alive and also make it easy to heal and replace damaged units.

How many units you need simply depend on how strong your units are and how strong the enemy are. At equal level it is a good idea to have plenty of units. Even more so if the enemy have a slight quality advantage. If you have something like +20 strength you wont need many units at all.

More units are generally safer so the more you can afford the better.

 

[UWHabs]

Optimal is the most units that you can afford. It definitely varies depending on era and whether you're using older units or not. For example, if you rush ahead in tech, you can take down cities with a couple crossbows and a musket. But if they already have muskets or Cavalry, then you can have 4 crossbows fire at a city and still barely make a dent. But generally speaking, more units is better, since you can take cities quicker and move on to the next one. A lot of the time my goal is to wipe out a civ before they can even beg me for peace.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Thanks for the feedback. In most of my games, my military is way more advanced than the AI's military which is why I rarely need a large army to conquer the AI. I am sure this is making me biased on this issue.

 

[BenitoChavez]

Assuming roughly even tech levels, some hills/forest around a city, and some moderate resistance by the AI I find 2-3 melee (swordsman/spearman, etc.), 3 ranged, and 1-2 siege units does a good job of taking a city. I also like to have 2 cavalry units for reconnaissance/pillaging.

In later eras ranged units become terribly ineffective so I usually set them on barb hunting duty and build a couple more melee and siege to go along with my conquering force.

 

[Disgustipated]

Sometimes if I'm struggling with firepower to get city health down, I will keep enough units to get a city siege, so it's worth considering always having enough to create a city siege just in case you need it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Sometimes if I'm struggling with firepower to get city health down, I will keep enough units to get a city siege, so it's worth considering always having enough to create a city siege just in case you need it.

I almost always try to siege a city because it is much easier to take. The only times I don't bother with a siege is when I have overwhelming firepower.

 

[smith.jr]

In my experience, with 1upt, the old adage is true: less is more. You don't want to have too many units because then they just block each other from moving. So what is the best/optimal number of units needed to take a city? And what units do you use?

I would say no more than 5 units if you are going up against a walled city. Something like 2 swordsman, 1 archer and 1 catapult is right. After nationalism, when you get armies and corps, no more than 3 "armies". Say 2 infantry armies and 1 artillery army is good in the modern era. Am I right?

It depends on your strategy, but generally u r right

 

[Ludvig]

If you are trying to melee a city to death with a tower I recommend sieging it by surrounding it so you have zone of control all around. Three knights were enough to take a city with equal to their combat strength when I did it yesterday but I had a horseman to block off a silly isolated river tile and the AI put priority on attacking the damaged knigths.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So in my current game as America, I've taken out Russia and now at war with Australia (they started it!). I've taken one city and now attacking the capital. If I can take the capital, I should be able to mop up the rest of the cities and then I will have the entire continent to myself with just a few suzerain city states with me. I am going for a culture victory, currently in the lead, with Australia as #2. So if I can wipe out Australia and have the entire continent to myself, it should be a breeze to a culture victory.

But I think I made a tactical blunder. I am attacking Australia's capital, a walled city (strength ~60) around the industrial/modern era that has an encampment. I decided to bypass the encampment and try to take the city directly (my blunder). The enemy has no units and I have surrounded the city with 1 rough rider army, 1 musketmen corp and 1 field cannon corp. I also had an old catapult corp but it got taken out by the city and encampment's combined ranged attacks. With both the city and the encampment being able to range attack me, I am not sure I can take the city with what I have. My field cannon corp is doing minimal damage to the city's wall. I am thinking I should retreat, get 1-2 artillery units up, focus on taking out the encampment first, then attack the city again.

 

[Hactar]

So in my current game as America, I've taken out Russia and now at war with Australia (they started it!). I've taken one city and now attacking the capital. If I can take the capital, I should be able to mop up the rest of the cities and then I will have the entire continent to myself with just a few suzerain city states with me. I am going for a culture victory, currently in the lead, with Australia as #2. So if I can wipe out Australia and have the entire continent to myself, it should be a breeze to a culture victory.

But I think I made a tactical blunder. I am attacking Australia's capital, a walled city (strength ~60) around the industrial/modern era that has an encampment. I decided to bypass the encampment and try to take the city directly (my blunder). The enemy has no units and I have surrounded the city with 1 rough rider army, 1 musketmen corp and 1 field cannon corp. I also had an old catapult corp but it got taken out by the city and encampment's combined ranged attacks. With both the city and the encampment being able to range attack me, I am not sure I can take the city with what I have. My field cannon corp is doing minimal damage to the city's wall. I am thinking I should retreat, get 1-2 artillery units up, focus on taking out the encampment first, then attack the city again.

Do you not have a battering ram? If not then yes, I would retreat and come back with better ranged units. Or at least more melee so you can swap out. Battering rams work wonders. I have fun using them with Modern Armor

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Do you not have a battering ram? If not then yes, I would retreat and come back with better ranged units. Or at least more melee so you can swap out. Battering rams work wonders. I have fun using them with Modern Armor

I had battering rams back in the classical age but not anymore. Since they are a classical era weapon, it did not occur to me to continue using them in the modern age. Silly me.

 

[Ludvig]

Siege towers are even better than rams in my opinion. Rams hurt the walls but towers just awoosh through them and suck out the city HP in no time.

I almost alwaysbuild and keep two or three towers from the classical era, tanks and siege towers are a match made in heaven oddly enough. They can be escorted by highly upgraded cavalry or helicopters to increase their move.

You would think they'd obsolete somewhere around urban defenses. I guess historically they're way to efficient already. Sieges were a thing for a reason but that would be extremely tedious.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Well, it worked folks. I pulled back and waited for some reinforcements. I built an artillery unit and a tank unit. I was able to take the encampment and then the artillery unit bombarded the city and reduced it to half strength in 2 turns and I easily took the city afterwards. Then, I just repeated the process with the rest of Australia and I conquered my entire continent and cruised to an easy culture victory in about 320 turns (on standard speed).

 

[Victoria]

Yup, the simple answer is it depend,strength of wall if any, opposition, encampment, location, difficulty. No magical number, just experience which is what you are getting

The +2 support for adjacent troops does not count vs ranged and so not that good for vs cities.