Remove City Bombardment For Empty Cities.

[Zhenon]

Not only can you not take "empty" cities in Civ5, you also can be damaged by that empty city. Why does Civ5 allow cities with absolutely no military protection or basic walls/defenses bombard enemy units? Is it supposed to help vs choking? Is it to encourage city spammers?

I know you guys hate warmongers, but it's really ridiculous in the ancient and classical eras that you basically cannot take cities until you research iron working and connect it. In other words, this really forces players to spam cities. The spammer will completely overwhelm the other player with his research/tech, gold, and production (couple that with France...) unless that player does the same. Why bother making Wonders or units until IW?

The warmonger is the counter to the spammer. Let warmongers make war!
1. Lower basic city defense.
2. Increase garrisoned city defense.
3. Don't allow unguarded cities to bombard the enemy.
4. Create happiness penalty for ungarrisoned (empty) cities.

GO!


Am I way off-base here?

[PhailRaptor]

The warmonger is the counter to the spammer. Let warmongers make war!
1. Lower basic city defense.
2. Increase garrisoned city defense.
3. Don't allow unguarded cities to bombard the enemy.
4. Create happiness penalty for ungarrisoned (empty) cities.

GO!


Am I way off-base here?

My only military experience with Civ5 is completely limited to the tutorial level, you as Rome with 2 cities against a single Persian city. It was ridiculous how long it took me to capture that one city. I ended up having to send a Catapult and like 8 Legions, and it still took 4 or 5 turns of a siege to take it. Persia built no walls, and had only 1 or 2 military units on the map at any time.

Things I would change:

# City strength scales off of population, with a low multiplier for culture.
# Allow 3 military units to occupy a city at a time.
# Walls reduce the damage taken by the city by 1, and Castles by 2, rather than improving city strength. (total of 3 damage reduction)

I've never been much of a General in the Civ series, but that seems reasonable to me.

[SamBC]

Cities are considered to have inherent abilities to defend themselves. Accept that, and everything makes sense. Civ5 is a new game, it's not Civ4. You have to think in different terms.

Sieges taking a few turns is also reasonable to me in this new model. The problem is ultimately that cities are too cheap to create and maintain.

[Zhenon]

Nobody mentioned Civ4.

[the man of doom]

yes but ur post is suggesting that city combat be like civ 4 rather than out in the feilds where alot of combat actually takes place IRL

[Zhenon]

I'm discussing game balance and the uselessness of garrisoning units:

1. If your city has very little "health" left and you build a unit the next turn, you will lose BOTH the city and the unit before you can use it unless you are quick to the click. If you already had a unit garrisoned in the city, you cannot move either of those units to attack a besieging army until you MOVE IT OUT of the city. In effect, you can lose 2 units and 1 city just because the other player is slightly quicker at moving units.

This is broken.

2. Garrisoned units add a minimal amount of defensive value to the city. There's little point to keep a unit in a city except to heal unless it is an archery-based unit or siege.

This is poorly thought out.

3. In the early eras, it is nearly impossible to take cities with warriors, archers, and spearmen. In other words, they are of little use except to upgrade, in the case of warriors, and to fight horse-based units, in the case of the latter.

This early-game combat system needs to be completely overhauled.


Why is unit garrison a part of Civ5 if it is not meant to have any place in the game? I'm getting tired of the lazy answer: "It's a new game! It's Civ5!" That is a ridiculous excuse and completely fallacious. If you disagree with me about my post, give me a real reason, please. Don't cop out.

The current implementation is broken. It would be easier just to get rid of city-garrisoning completely unless/until it is completely re-worked.

[Oosh]

Perhaps you should have to kill the garrisoned unit as well as reduce the city health?

[MadDjinn]

I use spearmen, and sometimes warriors backed by 2-3 archers, to take cities all the time. Cities don't have that big of a defense value early on (8-10) so they can be taken with a good assortment of units.

Once walls come in, or the city gets to 15-25 strength, that's when you need more powerful units to hurt the city.

[Zhenon]

Let's say you build 2 spears, 1 warrior, and 2 archers to take a city. How many hammers is that versus the number of hammers it cost to build a settler in your capital with the +50% bonus policy?

It's not worth it, and you will not get more than 1 city off of your opponent if he chooses to build all military after that. Of course, he could just build an archer in a couple of cities and continue spamming settlers in his capital. If you are playing against the AI, then..... you are playing against an easy opponent.

[MoistPancake]

I don't think I've ever had trouble capturing an empty city. If anything, it's a tad too easy.

[Zhenon]

With what unit(s)? Are you playing vs AI? If so, what difficulty? What era? Please elaborate, because I was discussing the ancient and classical era before Iron Working. After IW, it's easy enough to take cities.

[cjvannette]

I use spearmen, and sometimes warriors backed by 2-3 archers, to take cities all the time. Cities don't have that big of a defense value early on (8-10) so they can be taken with a good assortment of units.

Once walls come in, or the city gets to 15-25 strength, that's when you need more powerful units to hurt the city.

Agreed. I routinely knock over a city state before I have swordsmen and siege weapons. Several archers + several spearmen can take a city, particularly if they have experience from killing barbs and you're two policies into Honor.

[foxdie]

i prefer the combat in Civ5, and city taking as it is currently. I've never had an issue taking a city. The key is preperation. You cant go attack a city on a whim anymore just becuase you notice the city unguarded. You need a basis of attack, and softening of the target, a blockade of its resources.
I had (King) two destroyers with double attack, two bombers with double attack, and one mech inf. Every three turns i could take a city, maybe an extra turn for a capital. This is how war plays out, combined arms and preperation. Spaming non-promoted land units into the mist of enemy territory so they can can be picked off using all the enemies firendly lands bonuses one by one while queued up by unpassable terrain is not a good attack. Only reveal your land units once the city your attacking is down in sufficient health to destroy in a single fast paced attack.

The bombard feature, when using this tactic doesn't even have chance to fire, nor any garrisoned unit have the opportunity to counter. Then when the city is yours you fend off their counter attack. Except, now its you getting the friendly land bonuses!

[Skunkone]

yes but ur post is suggesting that city combat be like civ 4 rather than out in the feilds where alot of combat actually takes place IRL

THere are to ways to take a city irl, A frontal attack and envelopment to starve the defenders out. You are missing the starve feature in civ. If you want to have fun making war play total war, if you want to build a nation play civ it is as simple as that.

[Balthazaar]

THere are to ways to take a city irl, A frontal attack and envelopment to starve the defenders out. You are missing the starve feature in civ. If you want to have fun making war play total war, if you want to build a nation play civ it is as simple as that.

You can always pillage evey food resource, as far as i know if the pop goes down so does city strenght. But that takes to long.
Btw there are more then 2 ways to take a city IRL. A good idea for civ would be the ability to bribe citizens to join your side (for a hefty cost of course). I demand some spies i tells ya !!

For the OP. I find it easy enough (but still a challenge) to take cities before iron working on prince. As has been said, some spearmen and archers can take cities, and while you build troops you can let your city grow and go for techs or loadsa gold, so its not a waste building these troops + youll have a decent army early game + youll have the conquered cities.

[SamBC]

Taking cities early on isn't too hard; building cities is too cheap, however, and unit garrisoning is too weak. Also, garrisoned ranged troops either ought to add more to the range strength of the city (without adding more to the defensive strength), or still be allowed to ranged attack while garrisoned.

Players (including AIs) that spam cities massively should be hit with a crippling penalty to either science or money. Money is more solidly limiting, I think.

[MadDjinn]

With what unit(s)? Are you playing vs AI? If so, what difficulty? What era? Please elaborate, because I was discussing the ancient and classical era before Iron Working. After IW, it's easy enough to take cities.

Mostly AI, though I do play MP randomly.

Always Deity for SP. era is whenever I get there; so generally I'm in ancient and the AIs are starting to hit classical (or medieval if one grabbed the Great Library fast) -- edit: obviously the Greeks (Hoplite 9 CS) and Persians (Immortal 8 CS+GA +10%/+1move) are better for this.

Getting out a few archers for bombardment is not hard. You should even be able to buy one or two outright; depending on gold intake. Otherwise, 4 spearmen do the job just fine in 2ish turns. Preparation is the key. Ensure all attack on the same turn to prevent the city from just soaking the damage/rehealing. Definitely dodge attacking over rivers if you can.

The city only has so much health. You'll lose 2-4 hit points/attack (more if over a river), but do 4-5 damage (8-10 city strength).
So with 4 spearmen, (7 CS) you will take the city down in 2 turns if done right. Just heal and move to the next city.

It's not that hard, and you can possible take out 2-3 cities (terrain dependant) before needing to bring in bigger units.

[SamBC]

There are also possibilities for earlier units that could take down city strength well but do nothing else... it could be an espionage-style thing, of course, or there could be sappers (no idea how early sappers or something similar go, I'm pretty sure the Romans had them). Various possibilities for people who are basically good at taking a big hit off an otherwise healthy city. A unit that is very vulnerable to attack, but can reduce a neighbouring city to 50% hit points. It could even be the Worker, although you'd probably want a risk of them dying when they try. For historical accuracy, the Roman Legion could do it as well, and that would definitely warrant a downside to their use of the ability.

[shozum]

I wouldn't mind seeing garrisoned units add spice to the city they are in. Spearmen giving the city a bonus vs calvary units makes perfect sense in my eyes since their inherent bonus should come into play wether they are outside the city walls or inside.

I normally play on Immortal difficulty in both SP and MP and sometimes I've been able to crush a city with 4-5 units and then sometimes, well, the dice just doesn't roll in my favor at all and I suffer a wipe. What can you expect from warriors and archers ? They serve the purpose of defending my early cities from the restless natives but as far as offensive capabilites and laying siege to cities, not so great. That's what swordsman, catapults, and more sophisticated weaponry is for.

I have found that early game rushes in MP on another human pre-swordsman (at least in my circle of warmongers) is just suicide 90% of the time because by the time my forces arrive at their city gates they have usually rushed enough units to make it too costly to take. Even if I am successful in acquiring the city through chance and grandoise strategy I still run the risk of losing it to the counter attacking forces of my opponent or those pesky barbs will just rape it (we almost always play raging barbs heh).

TL;DR I focus on a nearby city-state as my first conquest now since the early extra city boost is so useful and they tend to fall a lot easier than another civ's domain.

[Shiggs713]

on earth maps, if playing as England, I routinely build a warrior first, move it and the one I started with up to Edinburgh and capture the city with 2 warriors, something around turn 10 or 15. Its easy enough to capture cities in the early game.

[Zhenon]

A lot of people in MP will spam a dozen size 1 cities and keep them at size 1. The capital will continue to build settlers while the size 1 cities will build units. If it costs more to build units and buildings than a settler in your capital, then it often becomes a battle of who can plant a city in such a way as to block the opponent from planting his city there. Have you ever played the game "Conquest?"

In other words, the current system in the early game does not prevent or hinder spammage. If you play the war-game early, you will mostly likely lose.

on earth maps, if playing as England, I routinely build a warrior first, move it and the one I started with up to Edinburgh and capture the city with 2 warriors, something around turn 10 or 15. Its easy enough to capture cities in the early game.

Such a strategy assumes your opponent believes you to be friendly. What if Edinburgh knew you were hostile from the beginning and were controlled by a human player? Thank you for giving me a real example.

I suppose the title of this thread is not appropriate since removing city bombardment will not magically cure the combat system. I honestly don't know of a good solution.

[Zhenon]

Mostly AI, though I do play MP randomly.

Always Deity for SP. era is whenever I get there; so generally I'm in ancient and the AIs are starting to hit classical (or medieval if one grabbed the Great Library fast) -- edit: obviously the Greeks (Hoplite 9 CS) and Persians (Immortal 8 CS+GA +10%/+1move) are better for this.

Getting out a few archers for bombardment is not hard. You should even be able to buy one or two outright; depending on gold intake. Otherwise, 4 spearmen do the job just fine in 2ish turns. Preparation is the key. Ensure all attack on the same turn to prevent the city from just soaking the damage/rehealing. Definitely dodge attacking over rivers if you can.

The city only has so much health. You'll lose 2-4 hit points/attack (more if over a river), but do 4-5 damage (8-10 city strength).
So with 4 spearmen, (7 CS) you will take the city down in 2 turns if done right. Just heal and move to the next city.

It's not that hard, and you can possible take out 2-3 cities (terrain dependant) before needing to bring in bigger units.

I can try this. I do fear, however, that it will likely be too late. By the time my units reach my human opponent, he could possibly have seen me coming and/or have IW and iron hooked by the time I reach him.

[SamBC]

A lot of people in MP will spam a dozen size 1 cities and keep them at size 1. The capital will continue to build settlers while the size 1 cities will build units. If it costs more to build units and buildings than a settler in your capital, then it often becomes a battle of who can plant a city in such a way as to block the opponent from planting his city there. Have you ever played the game "Conquest?"

In other words, the current system in the early game does not prevent or hinder spammage. If you play the war-game early, you will mostly likely lose.



Such a strategy assumes your opponent believes you to be friendly. What if Edinburgh knew you were hostile from the beginning and were controlled by a human player? Thank you for giving me a real example.

I suppose the title of this thread is not appropriate since removing city bombardment will not magically cure the combat system. I honestly don't know of a good solution.

This is perhaps more a symptom of people on MP playing super-competitively and mainly militarily, rather than "in the spirit of the game"...

[Furball]

My only 'issue' although i would see it more as a tweak for performance rather than anywhere near game breaking, is the fact garrisoned units in a city add very little which seems a little odd.
A city defending itself is like it having a malitia to protect itself in times of need, having a trained military unit defending it should drastically increase it defence/fighting ability.

I would give garrison benefits based on unit type
If you station a ranged unit it works out quite well as you can attack without fear of harm for your unit and still stay garrisoned.
I would add a similar ability but with only 1 tile range if you garrisoned mobile units in the city. this would simualate hit and run harrassment style tactics such a unit would employ in such a situation with them adding only a small amount of city strength similar to current values, or maybe less for balance reasons. The strength value would be the same for ranged units.
For standard infantry units i would simply up the scale of city strength added to the city while not giving the extra 'city attack'.

[Zhenon]

This is perhaps more a symptom of people on MP playing super-competitively and mainly militarily, rather than "in the spirit of the game"...

Playing militarily isn't in the "spirit of the game?" I'm not here to play "Legos."

[SamBC]

Playing militarily isn't in the "spirit of the game?" I'm not here to play "Legos."

It's not traditionally the focus of the game; there are other games for that.

[PhailRaptor]

Playing militarily isn't in the "spirit of the game?" I'm not here to play "Legos."

I think what he means is that military exploits should not be the only focus of the game. With which I agree.

However, I also agree that city conquest is far too difficult in the early game. Particularly City-States. Since they have only a single city to draw upon, they should fold more easily under pressure than a typical city out of a typical empire. As England, I was near Lhasha, so I decided "what the hell, why not?" and went to invade them -- I had an opportunity, since they had a Barbarian Encampment on their border, and had requested help destroying it, essensially giving me Open Borders to them -- but I had a problem. The nearest source of Iron was a great distance away, and I had only just built a city near Horses. Had I not hastily bought out a City-State across the continent that had Iron, I'd never have gotten the Catapult I ended up needing to bring them down.

Then my game crashed and I was sad.

[Sunrunner]

# City strength scales off of population

I think that is a great idea and a must have.

[_Pax_]

Not only can you not take "empty" cities in Civ5, you also can be damaged by that empty city.

[...]

Am I way off-base here?

Not "way off", but, a bit ... yes.

You have to accept that cities are never "empty", anymore. They come with a built-in garrison, that cannot be moved out of the city.

[_Pax_]

I ended up having to send a Catapult and like 8 Legions, [...].

Should have sent 3 Legions, and 5 Catapults. Position the 3 legions adjacent to the city - all in three contiguous hexes - and Fortify them. Position each of the Catapults so that there's a Legion between each one, and the target city.

Spend 1-2 turns bombarding the unholy CRAP out of the city. When it gets to less than 20% health, probably on the second turn? Send in the Legions.

[isfturtle]

I personally like the city bombard. But if some people don't like it, maybe have an option to turn it off?

[SamBC]

I think that is a great idea and a must have.

City strength does go up with population, and with techs (not sure if it was eras or number of techs researched).

[Saurus the Second]

I think my single biggest gripe I had with CIV 4 (besides that it lacked ZOC) was that the attacking player actually could fire at a city whil the defending city COULD NOT fire back at the attacker.

Cities are still too easy to capture in civ 5, even if they have the ability to shoot at an enemy.
I would not call a city "Empty". As would it be, It would not have an attacking value. I would call the troops theere the garrisoned troops who have been ordered to defend the city.

One could argue, of course, that the value of the citys defense should go down once it receives damage for the sake of realism - but given the cities still are too easy to capture, I don't think that would be a good thing to the game itself.


*BUG- EXPLOIT WARNING* Don't read futher if you are unwilling to exploit weakneses in the game.

I think a bigger problem is the "non-stop" bombarding by ships toward cities that heal quicker than they receive damage.
For instance, you can have 3 or 4 frigates or caravels firing at range 3 every turn. The city only has range 2 so cannot fire back but the city however heals compleatly every turn - only to receive the same salva of bombardment the next turn. This is an exlpoit that will give all your ships infinite XP:s untill they have all possible promotions. In the process you will earn 4 - 5 great generals.

[Simkill]

I'm discussing game balance and the uselessness of garrisoning units:

1. If your city has very little "health" left and you build a unit the next turn, you will lose BOTH the city and the unit before you can use it unless you are quick to the click. If you already had a unit garrisoned in the city, you cannot move either of those units to attack a besieging army until you MOVE IT OUT of the city. In effect, you can lose 2 units and 1 city just because the other player is slightly quicker at moving units.

This is broken.

2. Garrisoned units add a minimal amount of defensive value to the city. There's little point to keep a unit in a city except to heal unless it is an archery-based unit or siege.

This is poorly thought out.

3. In the early eras, it is nearly impossible to take cities with warriors, archers, and spearmen. In other words, they are of little use except to upgrade, in the case of warriors, and to fight horse-based units, in the case of the latter.

This early-game combat system needs to be completely overhauled.


Why is unit garrison a part of Civ5 if it is not meant to have any place in the game? I'm getting tired of the lazy answer: "It's a new game! It's Civ5!" That is a ridiculous excuse and completely fallacious. If you disagree with me about my post, give me a real reason, please. Don't cop out.

The current implementation is broken. It would be easier just to get rid of city-garrisoning completely unless/until it is completely re-worked.

With all due respect, your an idiot.

Of course there is little defensive value in having units that do not have ranged abilites garrisoned in a city. Why would you even consider having swordsmen in a city over archers?

I've taken plenty of cities on king difficulty with just warriors and archer. You only need about 4 warriors and 2 archers.

Your first point is valid, as you are talking about multiplayer mechanics, which are completly broekn. Multiplayer does not exist for this game.

[Zhenon]

With all due respect, your an idiot.

"you're" or "you are"