Why does a 97 Strength Tank Army suffer "Major Defeat" against 90 strength city?

[Orup The Great]

I am playing my first Civ6 game, and was contemplating a modern takeover of London with my still vastly more advanced armaments compared to the Brits. But since this would be the first time I attempted this with modern weapons, I decided to first compose together all the armaments I have at my disposal and do hover overs on London to see what sort of odds I could expect to confront.

As you can see from the included pic, the game, as usual, has laid out all the defense particulars for London to the left pane. I was surprised and confused when I saw this result from the Tank Army/London match up. I am not understanding why my Tank Army, which has a total strength of 97 would suffer a "Major Defeat" from attacking London which has a total strength of 90?

There are clearly underlying factors that I still don't understand (as a for instance: I realize that London has the Military Governor as its governor but in looking at the possible promotions that governor can accrue, I don't see any that I could see resulting in this type of skewed result-but I freely admit I am only sporting a still foggy understanding of Civ6).

Does anyone have any insights about this?

 

[criZp]

melee units do -85% damage vs walls/urban defenses, that means the tank will end up taking more damage than what is deals to the city

 

[bengalryan9]

Researching Steel and gaining urban defenses adds a ton of HP to the city, makes them really hard to take down without bombarding the walls down.

 

[Scaramanga]

My question is why attack the only civ that is friendly to you?

 

[Disgustipated]

You can brute force it, but it would require many tank armies. But ideally you want to take the walls down first using artillery or bombers (or battleships since they are on the sea). Or if you are Suzerain of Akkad you can use melee units like infantry to do it (the description says anti cav too, but I haven't had good luck with anti cav taking down walls as Suzerain of Akkad). Once the walls are down you will do full damage to the city.

edit: Keep in mind I'm referring to this specific situation in the modern age. With lesser walls and earlier time frame you can use battering ram or siege tower, but those still won't work with heavy cavalry units which is what a tank is.

 

[ghost88]

melee units do -85% damage vs walls/urban defenses, that means the tank will end up taking more damage than what is deals to the city

Which is true in real life.
What does the Infantry call unsupported Armor in a city?
Target practice.
Then it takes an incredibly stupid tanker to enter a city without infantry support.

 

[Scaramanga]

Which is true in real life.
What does the Infantry call unsupported Armor in a city?
Target practice.
Then it takes an incredibly stupid tanker to enter a city without infantry support.

But Mechanised Infantry is supported by infantry and takes the same penalty. The only difference would be susceptibility to anti-tank.

 

[Orup The Great]

OK-all these answers make total sense. Thanks for the clarification.

My question is why attack the only civ that is friendly to you?

Well, mostly to learn what would happen (Elizabeth is not only friendly to me, but she is also the only other civ that could compete with me-and: she is the only other true competitor that is on my continent.)

I needed Coal but had none, and the computer put the only coal I could phyiscally access in some still unsettled territory right up by . . . London. After resisting the notion of settling up there for many turns, I finally relented and settled a city at the coal resource. Of course I was met with HUGE disloyalty (-20), and over several turns got the disloyalty down to -1, BUT: I had exhausted all other means to control the disloyalty, so although the amount of turns that the city would rebel were way up there, the simple fact is, eventually I would have to watch that city rebel from me-and lose my source of coal. So I, reluctantly, started to game out how a war with Elizabeth would go on-and how feasible it would be to take London. Another reason I was contemplating it: boredom. I've been at peace many, many centuries, mostly because this is the first time I've taken Civ6 out for a spin.

But, I pretty much decided I would try another route: I further gamed out an option wherein I accept her (constant) requests that we become formal friends once again, then I immediately enter in to a Cultural Alliance with her. Next turn: my coal city is completely loyal to me. Coal is secured. So: that's the course I will take. Perhaps not as exciting as a full-scale land war with a neighboring opponent, but effective, and it'll buy me more time of uninterrupted growth and learning on this new (to me) game. The next big war I have may very well turn out to be across the oceans with the other powers out there, and I'll experience Modern Warfare that way.

 

[CPWimmer]

London has some incredible natural defenses there with those mountains!

Bombers and Battelships to soften her up would be the way to go, if you do eventually fight it out with Vicky.

In the meantime, it sounds like you found a very solid solution to your problems (well, except for the boredom problem).

 

[ghost88]

But Mechanised Infantry is supported by infantry and takes the same penalty. The only difference would be susceptibility to anti-tank.

Which goes to prove that the designers get one right and the next one wrong. It comes from not having the ability to actually design the game to account for the fact that since B.H. Liddell-Hart championed a combined arms approach between WWI and WWII Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery and now Air power have worked in concert with each other to a much greater extent than in the past . It would require a different method of combat than the current game.
This is one reason I have suggested the Age of Wonders approach to the One unit per tile / Stacks of Doom debate.

 

[Duuk]

How does a state of the art

with a dashing firebrand of a Lieutenant Colonel get mowed down and destroyed to a man by a group of

and

?

 

[ghost88]

How does a state of the art

with a dashing firebrand of a Lieutenant Colonel get mowed down and destroyed to a man by a group of

and

?

View attachment 545967

Because the Lt Colonel thought the same about his opponent as you seem to.
When in fact he was not only out numbered but out gunned as his "backward" opponent was well armed with repeating rifles and those that were equipped with bows could "out gun" their single shot breech loading "state of the art" armed Cavalrymen.
Note that those bowmen trained and hunted with their bows from the time they were big enough to not drag the bows on the ground, while the carbine shooters of the 7th might not have shot their carbines in months.
Better asked question would be how did a British General get 1300 of his men killed by an opponent armed mostly with stabbing spears, two and a half years latter?
I'll answer both your ? and mine gross incompetence on both men's part. One due to his thirst for glory, the other by grossly under estimating the will and ability of his "spear chucking" opponent to fight just as on that same day elements of that opponents forces under estimated how well trained, well armed, and fortified professionals could fight.
If you look back in history almost every instance of the "Modern" army losing to the "backward" people, some leader of the "Modern" army grossly over estimate the superiority of his troops.

 

[Victoria]

Does anyone have any insights about this?

Have a read of this guide - https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/city-combat.27737/

 

[Orup The Great]

Have a read of this guide - https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/city-combat.27737/

This is awesome! Completely comprehensive. Thanks so much!

 

[Haig]

Turn the battle of London into your own personal Stalingrad