seanw3

Join Date 12/2007

+141

City Defense

Preventing the Rush

City Defense

Preventing the Rush

I have been testing out some of the core strategic elements and one particular aspect still receives a low mark. City defense is just not up to where it should be. It feels too much like token resistance and not enough like people defending their territory. On an immersion level poor city defense battles leave cities without character. There is no struggle to defend a city or capture one. They just feel like stepping stones, even in the earliest portions of gameplay. From a game balance or strategic perspective, city defense is simply not a factor. At no point have I ever questioned whether or not I can take a city. I only ever question what to do with it after I reach it. In fact, I would be so bold to say that never have I ever lost a city battle at any point in the game, unless I was defending.

In my latest .983 playthrough, my good Lady Irane walked over to the nearest city, declared war, attacked the same turn, easily defeated an archer and clubsman from a level 2 city and had a late breakfast. It was not just easy, it was sad. This is supposed to be the capital of Resoln and yet it fought like a retarded duckling. From a balance perspective, the early game needs to prevent the rush. Rushing should be a viable tactic, but it should take an actual early game army, not a level 1 Sov with a crude shortbow and some wild gumption. I didn't kite or use spells, I just hit them first and never missed. They were slow and easy to kill. This can't be aloud early in the game. The player should not have to stack his cities with wage taking troops to prevent the rush. It almost goes without saying that each faction should be protected until the midgame to a reasonable extent. Allowing rushing earlier than that needs to take up a nations entire build queue and force some losses in economy. That is the only way taking over a new city can be anything less than a game ending victory.

I think a good way to balance this is to set a time in the game where capturing cities makes sense. On season 25 with one level 1 unit, is not it. I would say around turn 100 with at least 4 units is a good starting point for capturing a level 1 city. The next step is to make sure that with no special buildings, this attack provides some semblance of a challenge. Since the early game has no armor and only clubs, it makes sense to have alot of units of reasonable level protecting cities. If the enemy has 4, the defender needs at least 5; 2 archers and 3 melee of level 3. Even this as a starting point for city defense, is fairly easy for attackers to overcome. But at least one low level unit could never manage it and you have to admit that the reward of taking a city far and away constitutes a staunch challenge.

That would just be a level 1 city. Level 2 is where things should get interesting. I added in a special way for each city to defend in my latest mod and it did add some really nice flavor to city defense. I don't think that is something likely for the devs to choose, but even so, there are ways to make city specialization affect defense. Basically it seems that Fortress is set to be the only defender city. If that is the goal, fine. Make sure though that even choosing a Fortress adds defenders of decent level. Building a Fort and then a Castle should make a city nigh impenetrable. The labor costs are so high, choosing them needs to feel more significant and really protect a city from all but the most deadly attacks. I even took to giving these defenders set armor, traits, and items to make sure they held their own regardless of tech level. Having defender knights on call is a great way to protect from most armies.

After the midgame mark, we need a clear focus in siege specialization. If I want to build a force capable of taking down multiple cities, that needs to cost me something. I should need at least the Catapult tech. I should need to have good armor to take on the superior numbers of a city. I should need magics like Fireball and Blizzard. These things must be the necessities of siege. Choosing them should have a specifically different feeling than a player who focuses on defending territory with fast troops or the guerrilla fighter, who simply uses light infantry to attack weak points. Fleshing these things out is easy. You just play test each strategy and add some costs and benefits to each type.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

It might be nice to have the militia types get a current armor piece per city level. Level 1 would get a Chest, Level 2 a Chest and Legs, etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the city defenders should be replaced by one catapult.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Have to agree on all those proposals. Right now, the only penalty for rushing an enemy city is the high, unmitigated Unrest afterward - and if you don't like that, you can just raze it after having crippled/killed a faction. I also suggested giving Path of the Governor a few traits to further boost any city militia's they're defending with, so said units can at least provide a buffer against late-to-endgame troops.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes, city defenders should be orders of magnitude tougher than they are now. In every single way.

1. Numbers. We can safely assume that city population is the number of body able men and women. How many people does a city population lose when it changes hands? That's how many people maximum should be fielded in a city defense. Yes, that means that cities should field more people against a bear attack than against an enemy nation. This should be capped by the max number of units on the battle map.

2. Unit strength. All city defenders should have the highest group size available to the nation, capped by total number available, as above.

3. Equipment. A city on level L should have L units equipped with the very best the nation can produce. The rest should have equipment that's one tier lower.

4. Garrisoned troop wages - those should be halved, at least. Being on campaign costs a lot more than sitting in a barrack - the difference between living on cheap bread vs beef jerky, and repairing worn equipment vs replacing it with stuff you have to transport with your army.

You think this is too much? I think that it retarded that a level two city with 120 population is guaranteed to fall a sand golem that wander in.

Taking a city should be epic, losing a city above outpost level should be a tragedy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

AlLanMandragoran

Join Date 09/2010

+63

I agree. As someone who's been around long enough to remember the evolution of EWOM (no milita and the old tactical maps that had fences and such where positioning was important), city defense feels lacking. Fortresses look awesome with the stakes or walls, but when it comes down to it it plays like any other battle (but with city buffs).

My Issues:

I think there is a 9 unit cap for each side in tactical - thus if you have 9 units defending and 4 militia, only 9 show up and it appears a random mix of units from militia and the 9 stack. Furthermore, when you get attacked the pop up is completely misleading. I had an example (wish I posted it) where my sov was defending a city along with 8 other units (plus 4 militia) and the pop indicated my sov was the only defender. I was like wtf, but when I entered tactical my sov wasn't even there but I did have 9 defending units (a mix of militia and stack). I would say this is partly bug and partly an engine limitation (if 9 is the cap).
Wish there was a seige timer based on city level a la Lord of the Realms 2. In that game, there was a season counter based on the level of castle defending and the size of the attacking army. You had to seige the castle which allowed reinforcements to come in and attack the agressors or it allowed the defender to reinforcce the castle if needed. This would be a new mechanic but I'm optimistic it could be done considering what SD put in place recently on the UI regarding multiple stacks on the same tile (the 2's, 3's, etc). This mechanic would completely slow down the roll and allow the AI to adjust.
Granting militia armor bonuses - this is simply a balance issue by tweaking values and would be the easiest to implement. Cities would become much harder if the defenders had some armor.
Once I get on a roll attacking an enemy AI he/she doesn't do the following:

Doesn't cast offensive strategic spells like tremor, freeze, fire pillar, etc - negative
The mechanic of reduced movement points slows down the advance but that is immediately mitigated once the city or outpost is taken (when the ZOC flips). So I have mixed feelings on this - I like it, but it's easily overcome by zoc flipping.
Enemy AI factions typically throw everything they have in the initial declaration of war. If you can plan/survive the zerg, there's really nothing left to stop the player's offensive. The player cuts through faction AI like a hot knife through butter.

If all of these things above were ironed out, I could live without walls, catapults, rams, all that jazz (or at least wait for an expansion).

Now I say all of these things acknowledging the tremendous progress made the past 2 years. The company, game, and community is fantastic. I also realize I'm just a player throwing out my own personal wishlist. So please consider this feedback in the positive light intended. Keep it up!

[Edit] Also a fan of the requests regarding prepositioning units. It is aggravating to have archers up front, or squishy heroes, etc. It would be ideal to have tanks up front, squishies in back, and cavalry in the wings. Poker in the front, liquor in the back!

Successfully updated karma reason!

city defenses should be just stronger

maybe tied to some tech or fortress expansions but they need to be better, not by much but something

in early game it should be nearly impossible to take a city

unless like sean said you really FOCUS on rushing, that means building many good troops as only thing

that way imo winning a city should be possible

all other scenarios should be prevented, early game is for expansion and to fight the enviroment

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yes! A thousand times yes. I was going to post on this myself.

City defense is abysmal. There is no other way to put it. Whether its getting killed by a spider or failing to even dent a player attack its useless. Whether its at the start or at the end the cities need defense badly. It absolutely F's me that my cities are regularly kiled by spiders, bears, mutant wierdos. Its a level 3 city and it cant have a few more dudes or armor? Even if I make troops they get whomped by hoarder spiders, drakes etc.

I too have never lost a city attack. And once your on a roll you dont stop. You just go city to city till there dead. Each time re=killing the hero or sov, giving them yet MORE injuries.

There really really needs to be some defensive inertia. ie I build up, attacka nd take a city, I need to stop and build up again, replace my losses, heal my heros.

At present I actually get annoyed my heros go into the city once taken and i have to click them out again, I want to move forward NOW and get another city in the next turn or two, not stop in the city.

Solutions: I think all of the above plus more are good. I would actually like to swing far in favour of the defendor and move the balance slowly back. Its so far gone I dont think a slight increase in defensive is going to come anywere close. Anyway my two cents (or 40 bucks)

a. More militia, this is an easy one, just add way more militia. How effective it is is arguable (id say poor on its own) but its a start. I mean giant cities with 2 or 3 guys to defend. Pls.

b. more armor/stuff for militia. I have all sorts of armor/horse/trinkets etc why isnt my militia better equipped?

c. City buff, give defense bonuses or free spells etc from city levels. Kind of like the essence spells but free in every city of a certain level.

c. Flavour defence. THis is my favoured option. Why cant there be some more flavour defensive buildings? We have a start with guard statue and the thing that makes an assasin demon. WHy not a few choices of buildings that add a monster or special unit? A bulding that give an elemental as defendor or a mage or a henchman or or or (insert your own imagination here)

d. Way more Building troop add ons. We have them for forts, but all cities need a some more. Its another easyish, AI friendly fix, have existing buildings add soldiers. ie build a town hall +1 militia, + 1 initative, build a well +1 milita etc.. Ai can keep doing what it does without any hassle and get free guys to defend while it does.

e. Harder but more fun building add ons: Like D. but with a bit more work. ie Have a special cleric unit with the cleric, a special city defendor with the town hall, apprentices from the mill etc Again use whatever terms you like but it would be a fun (IMO) "the town has turned out to defend itself" kind of thing. ANd provide much needed inertia to attacks.

Anyway, whatever you do its just not fun for me the way it is. Whether defending monsters or attacking AI its just too easy and too quick.

Successfully updated karma reason!

OMG, Im afraid devs wont read this very important thread because you guys write unreadable WALLS of text.

My TLDR version of the rush issue:

City defence needs to be something like 5 times stronger than it is right now (even that might not be enough).

Movement within enemy city borders should be 1 square so no one can war dec and attack a city on the same turn.

Movement in general should be reduced so that you cant instantly run over to your neighbour (like you can now with a mount and a road).

Successfully updated karma reason!

The devs are both thoughtful and enjoy in depth analysis. I have gotten positive responses before. I am largely accredited with making the strongest arguments for city upgrades and no maintenance mechanics. Hope this gets some attention before release. Of course I only care in as much as it will hurt the reviews. Personally I have a very robust city defense structure already in place.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting FrenziedFan,

reply 9

Movement within enemy city borders should be 1 square so no one can war dec and attack a city on the same turn.

I always thought if you declared war you are immediately pushed outside their border. Thats what happened to me when I tried that tactic out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I disagree that city defense should be five times stronger. A little bit stronger so city combat wasn't such a pushover, I wouldn't mind.

Heck maybe just increase the number of defenders by one or two and keep the same current algorithms for unit strength. It's very easy for a sov to walk through a kingdom unless the other sov is around.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It will not work. Until city defense is equipped with at least the second best gear available to the nation, it will be irrelevant.

Rushing a side should not work. And the AI is terrible at using low end units. Even at ridiculous, it is not until turns 60-70 that the AI has a prayer of stopping a well crafted fighting sovereign. A prayer, not an actually chance, mind you. That never really happens (at least not in .982)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Tuidjy,

reply 13

It will not work. Until city defense is equipped with at least the second best gear available to the nation, it will be irrelevant.

Rushing a side should not work. And the AI is terrible at using low end units. Even at ridiculous, it is not until turns 60-70 that the AI has a prayer of stopping a well crafted fighting sovereign. A prayer, not an actually chance, mind you. That never really happens (at least not in .982)

That is the reason why i suggested a catapult as a city defender. It has a range attack with a radius of 1 tile and it is already possible to add a catapult to the city defenses. The city defense should work like this:

Level 1 - 2 city: 1 crude catapult (lower defense, lower attack)

Level 3 - 4 city: 1 catapult (standard defense, standard attack)

Level 5 city: 1 ironwood catapult (higher defense, higher attack)

Hedge Wall / Wooden Wall: + 5 initiative for defending units

Castle / Fort: + 5 attack for defending units

Watchtower: + 10 accuracy for defending units

Successfully updated karma reason!

In this game in cities live lazy people, they do not bring products not generate income. These people do not want to protect those citys.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting seanw3,

reply 10

Yes

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think maybe adding a special skill / spell to the city archer militia to be town volley. Where the town fires a volley of arrows that hits every opposing unit in the stack. Have a cool down of 1 or 2 turns for balance. Also, I don't know if the city bonus to defense is working appropriately right now. I notice if I auto resolve some attacks I have a great chance of winning (or losing troops), but if I tatically fight the battle there is no contest. Something is fishy with the tatical battle.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah, a couple of air shrills will take a city way into the game if you dont spot them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

NorsemanViking

Join Date 03/2006

+19

My thoughts:

We need siege. Other cities then fortress should also be able to build city walls, but not with the same bonuses of fortresses.

With siege I mean a penalty in turns where the attacking army has to wait before it attacks the city. The waiting time in turns should then depend on the size of the defending walls, and also on how good siege weaponry you bring. You could be able to storm a city earlier, but then with HUGE maluses depending on the type of walls. And then I mean a huge malus to the effectiveness of troops and also most magic types.

This would make it alot more risky to attack cities. Under the siege the enemy might have time to send armies and come the city to rescue. It would also increase the usefullness and importance of good fortifications.

Medium to high class fortifications should also prevent the lowest tier monsters to be able to attack a city. The best fortifications only the dragons and other supermonsters should be able to pass, parhaps after a turn or two of breaking down the walls.

Anyways, improved city defences should be something the player must sacrifice other things to acchieve, having to spend worktime to build up defences and be prepared for the worst, or building certain buildings and watchtowers that gives extra abilities to the garnison. I don't think better city defences then you get in the current version should come for free.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree too with the easy-to-take cities in early game. The city walls should give dodge vs archers and more defense too. Do you remember how they solved in our dear old MoM? You had to spend some turns breaking the fence, under the fire of archers, catapults, spells,...so that was hard in early game. A walled city gave so much respect for low level units...And walling city was a must do...

I still see there are issues with the possibility of making early troops, because of the Warfare Tech tree. Archers are very good to defend, while supporting militia, so the tech to make short bows should be allowed since first stages. Early archers with any other troop can even put heroes in trouble.And for a low production, AI could mass them in their cities. Players should be able to do that.But the cost is the money (wages), and the city dedicated to troop, instead of growing. That is strategy. But now, we all focus in economy on first stages, and use heroes instead, because warfare techs takes a lot...

Here is the point: Early game, as there are no cheap/quick troops to do, all relies on heroes. Putting basic archers (1 -3 damage, no more needed) within the first weapon tech, and to do them in few turns, and I think we can see more flavour in early game.

All ideas of modify/buff stationed troops/militia, buildings and all that, is just a patch for what the game is still missing: cheap/quick-to-make troops in early game, specially archers. All the rest basic troops, as fodder meat, will help too if the production cost/time spent deserved it. What is unthinkable, is that a basic archer or a militia takes more than 3/4 turns even in a low level city. 9 turns a club man? Come on...

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the city defenders got the second best weapons/armour available it would help a lot. Siege is for DLC

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting parrottmath,

reply 11

Quoting FrenziedFan, reply 9Movement within enemy city borders should be 1 square so no one can war dec and attack a city on the same turn.

I always thought if you declared war you are immediately pushed outside their border. Thats what happened to me when I tried that tactic out.

Then you dont know what you are doing. If you war dec BEFORE you go into the enemy borders then you can just walk all the way to the city if you have enough movement, hence the need for 1 square move in enemy territory.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting seanw3,

reply 10

Im not saying it was bad, just that maybe you guys should think about compressing your posts so the devs can read/understand it faster/easier.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Really enjoy the post Sean.
Right now I am not in the mood to read all the walls, but the original is good

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Successfully updated karma reason!

I had made a post on this a while back, my idea was that buildings add something to the defense of the town. Something like:

Shrines could summon magical beings to help defend the city (maybe a low level elemental or two)

Temple of essence could summon higher level elementals to defend

Barracks give high level units

Command posts give some kind of hero / general

Bell towers grant impulsive to the defenders

A horses or wargs supplying the city could make the defenders mounted

An iron mine could improve their weapons

A shard shrine / altar could add a mage unit with some kind of staff

A monument (the resource, not the building) could give some kind of leader

And so on for nearly all of the buildings

Basically, make it so that, in the process of building up the city, you're also defending it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree that cities need and deserve better defenses. In my perfect world, fortresses would have a fairly large zone of influence within which they offer protection to towns, conclaves, outposts and resources. A game mechanic might be to require invading armies to defeat fortresses before they can attack anything else. The battle for an established and well defended fortress would be epic - think Stalingrad. Victory should be expensive, loss should be devistating. Once all the fortresses are taken, surrender should be automatic - no sense trying to build an asymmetric resistance into the game, though I like the idea of allowing the defeated faction to choose who they surrender to - as in GalCiv II - that can really shake up the balance of power. Offensive and defensive weapons - physical or magical, should be balanced, requiring a siege and hopefully requiring some strategy to prevail.

Successfully updated karma reason!