Why the heck can cities indirect fire???

[Ahriman]

Alternatively, city attacks aren't just "bombardment", they're a combination of sallies and raids as well.

 

[pxpdoo]

I know damn well that if my city were under attack, I'd be forming a minuteman-style militia and fighting!
Attack my city, will you...

 

[joyous_gard]

It would be cool if indirect fire were opened in a later era for cities (so they would be able to do it eventually, but not right out of the box).

That would add some diversity to the game and could offer some decision making... You need to have a particularl tech (not engineering but something later) to build some kind of projectile launching towers (pre req walls) or something.

 

[the343danny]

Think about it realistically. Maybe you can think that the city garrisons are actually not attacking from the city, but sallying out to harass their flanks, then retreat. Then, since locals of a city probably know their surroundings quite well, they can cross mountains in small numbers (cities dont do that much damage), then hit and run back to the city, through the mountains where the large armies wont dare to cross.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Just wanted to say that I agree with most of this threat. Indirect fire is fine for the same historical answers other shave left: its not necessarily city bombardment, but rather attrition, raids, and militia groups engaging their armies. Also, I'd also consider it starvation of enemy troops, etc. All forms of attrition in enemy territory.