seanw3 seanw3

City Defense

▼

City Defense

Preventing the Rush

from Elemental Forums

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. 

43,109 views 67 replies
Reply #51 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting CogBurn, reply 46

While I don't want cities to be an easy pushover, you have to be careful about making them too autonomous. The last time we had this discussion, my stance was that there is already too little impetus to build your own troops in this game, and cities with strong self-defense will only further deflate the need to build troops. I haven't seen anything to massively change that paradigm in the last few betas and I stand by it. Sure, I think a city shouldn't be able to be knocked over by a lone sov on turn 15, but they shouldn't be self defending against troll armies on turn 120 either.

There is little impetus to build troops, but at the same time, it takes too long. You could spend your entire build queue trying to train enough units to defend cities and still not be able to against monsters and enemy heroes. It takes too long and you can't afford them. Even with no wages for garrisoned units, which is often suggested, you don't stop the early rush. My main problem game play wise is that rushes are too easy in the early game. The only solution to that is a more powerful natural defense on turn one. 

From there we could go many ways. I would love it if garrisoned units cost no wages, but then the training times need to be 25% of what they are now. I doubt the devs will do this so I pass it by. It's problematic to tell us we should be building troops for defense, when the devs make it so impossible to do so. I would love it if garrisoned units got all the best armor based on the techs a player has. This one is very likely for them to do. That should change the paradigm. Another way to go is to have more defenders unlocked throughout the game to add some flavor to certain buildings. This would be a great addition for midgame defense. Finally, you should have a few buildings that cast a spell at the beginning of combat. We already have enchantments to do that, but I would like to see it come from a building since essence is so scarce. Could be arrows, could be a fire spell. I vote both please!

So either they make troops more affordable and take less time to train, or they increase the defense of cities. The problem with the former is that it would more likely lead to monster stomping over city defense. Cities would become meaningless stepping stones, only taken back once one's army has come back from killing trolls and dragons to massively level. If garrisoned units had no wages, that would be solved, but how much time would that take to implement and teach the AI? The nice thing about boosting static city defense is that it offers a solution with no extra development time. And training units for the sake of defense is exactly the same as building a defensive building, except the former would allow a player to momentarily use all those troops to stomp things out in the wild once enough gildar is saved up. That could spell some very problematic balance issues this late in the game.

Reply #52 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 51
I have mixed feelings about the sentiments of this thread.

Having good support troops (militia) can help turn the tide of a battle, but they shouldn't be able to save your butt if you decide to not properly defend your cities with trained troops or heroes. Making the militia too powerful would make the game bland, imo.

I personally feel like the current implementation is good enough and pretty well balanced for my tastes, but if the devs feel that some balance needs to be done, then I'm all for trying it out.

But this is not a multliplayer game. I get fair punishment for player who is 'not properly defending' against another human and that lots of defensive can make a slow MP game. But in this game it is AI and the AI is not working. The monster AI is attacking human/ai cities and the AI civs is not defending well at all against me or monsters.

This to me is bland and way too easy.

Current game abandoned because 2 AI players died within 50 turns to monsters, one almost at the very start. The whole left side of the map is empty, I will have someting like 15/20 cites without a fight. That is not fun now.

 Do you really encounter the AI with good defense? Have you ever had a real attack stoped?

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #53 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 51
I have mixed feelings about the sentiments of this thread.

Having good support troops (militia) can help turn the tide of a battle, but they shouldn't be able to save your butt if you decide to not properly defend your cities with trained troops or heroes. Making the militia too powerful would make the game bland, imo.

I personally feel like the current implementation is good enough and pretty well balanced for my tastes, but if the devs feel that some balance needs to be done, then I'm all for trying it out.

 

I dont understand how you (of all people) cant see that cities need better defense to protect against a random encounter with a hero. What is happening now is that your hero runs around trying to level up, and when you see a city you just take it. There is nothing more to it. If the AI chooses to gimp himself by stationing a hero you win by leveling your hero faster, and if the AI builds troops then you will just win because of superior economy/research.

An argument could be made for either nerfing heroes or by making making it easier/faster to build troops but given how weak city defense is right now you would have to nerf heroes HARD and if you make it easier to build troops that will just lead to rushing cities with your troops instead.

Reply #54 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting leroy105, reply 52

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 51I have mixed feelings about the sentiments of this thread.

Having good support troops (militia) can help turn the tide of a battle, but they shouldn't be able to save your butt if you decide to not properly defend your cities with trained troops or heroes. Making the militia too powerful would make the game bland, imo.

I personally feel like the current implementation is good enough and pretty well balanced for my tastes, but if the devs feel that some balance needs to be done, then I'm all for trying it out.


But this is not a multliplayer game. I get fair punishment for player who is 'not properly defending' against another human and that lots of defensive can make a slow MP game. But in this game it is AI and the AI is not working. The monster AI is attacking human/ai cities and the AI civs is not defending well at all against me or monsters.

This to me is bland and way too easy.

Current game abandoned because 2 AI players died within 50 turns to monsters, one almost at the very start. The whole left side of the map is empty, I will have someting like 15/20 cites without a fight. That is not fun now.

 Do you really encounter the AI with good defense? Have you ever had a real attack stoped?

 

I dont get why you think this problem is related to MP. Current game mechanics would be awful for MP, rushing opponents cities would be the only tactic used. It would be completely unplayable.

Reply #55 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting FrenziedFan, reply 55



Quoting leroy105,
reply 52

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 51I have mixed feelings about the sentiments of this thread.

Having good support troops (militia) can help turn the tide of a battle, but they shouldn't be able to save your butt if you decide to not properly defend your cities with trained troops or heroes. Making the militia too powerful would make the game bland, imo.

I personally feel like the current implementation is good enough and pretty well balanced for my tastes, but if the devs feel that some balance needs to be done, then I'm all for trying it out.


But this is not a multliplayer game. I get fair punishment for player who is 'not properly defending' against another human and that lots of defensive can make a slow MP game. But in this game it is AI and the AI is not working. The monster AI is attacking human/ai cities and the AI civs is not defending well at all against me or monsters.

This to me is bland and way too easy.

Current game abandoned because 2 AI players died within 50 turns to monsters, one almost at the very start. The whole left side of the map is empty, I will have someting like 15/20 cites without a fight. That is not fun now.

 Do you really encounter the AI with good defense? Have you ever had a real attack stoped?


 

I dont get why you think this problem is related to MP. Current game mechanics would be awful for MP, rushing opponents cities would be the only tactic used. It would be completely unplayable.

I dont think its related to MP, that was the point of my post! However thats my bad if thats not clear in my post, no one to blame but me.

I was trying (obviously not successfully) to get where mqpiffle was coming from. I get in other games you dont want strong auto defense this just drags out the game and rewards bad players - players who can muck around and be silly and rely on the game giving them an automatic no stress, no skill defense.

Its turtle syndrom, you sit in your base making a few towers, booming your eco and then rant on the forums because you lost to someone who dared attack you before your mega army was finished building, or while your mega army was attack there base they dared attack your base!!!!.

My poiny was that this isnt MP game, you cant use the normal basis to evaluate base defence. Its mainly AI bases that get the benefits and thats why its NOT bland, its NOT tedious to have super strong base defense. Becuase I as a human player will have to think about how to break that base and not have 5 12 year olds (or mental equivalent) being dicks in game whilst having an automaticaly strong base

Reply #56 from Elemental Forums Top

Well ya, and really I am just asking that a level 1 Sov doesn't roll an entire empire. If you bring a full army in the first 50 turns and they are about level 4, that should take out a weak city. I am not saying make them impenetrable from turn one. I am saying let's finish the game and sell it to people.

Reply #57 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 51

There is little impetus to build troops, but at the same time, it takes too long. You could spend your entire build queue trying to train enough units to defend cities and still not be able to against monsters and enemy heroes. It takes too long and you can't afford them.

I don't think building any one unit takes too long, I think building any one unit that becomes obsolete trash the moment someone researches the next warfare tech takes too long. The investment in troops would be fine if they were not so easily invalidated by a similarly long investment in the warfare research tree.

Reply #58 from Elemental Forums Top

Great stuff, thanks.

I've been playing with this and you are right.  There are a few changes that eroded our city defenses.  We fixed an issue where city defenders would stack up from prior improvements (if you were city level 3 you used to get level 1, 2 and 3 defenders in your city).  Ive also applied a 25% attack and defense bonus when you are in your own lands.  As is Im gettign slaughtered trying to rush a city with a single low level sovereign, but I will get it to you guys for feedback and testing.

 

Reply #59 from Elemental Forums Top

Sweet. Can't wait to see the new changes!

Reply #60 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting leroy105, reply 56
I dont think its related to MP, that was the point of my post! However thats my bad if thats not clear in my post, no one to blame but me.

I was trying (obviously not successfully) to get where mqpiffle was coming from. I get in other games you dont want strong auto defense this just drags out the game and rewards bad players - players who can muck around and be silly and rely on the game giving them an automatic no stress, no skill defense.

Its turtle syndrom, you sit in your base making a few towers, booming your eco and then rant on the forums because you lost to someone who dared attack you before your mega army was finished building, or while your mega army was attack there base they dared attack your base!!!!.

My poiny was that this isnt MP game, you cant use the normal basis to evaluate base defence. Its mainly AI bases that get the benefits and thats why its NOT bland, its NOT tedious to have super strong base defense. Becuase I as a human player will have to think about how to break that base and not have 5 12 year olds (or mental equivalent) being dicks in game whilst having an automaticaly strong base

I understand the point of having defending militia, and I actually like the mechanic.  I'm even OK with the auto-defenders being (fairly) strong if there is proper research and/or infrastructure in place.  If I spend the time to building up stronger militia at the expense of building strong attack troops or other city boosting infrastructure, I'm all for it.

 

 

Reply #61 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Derek, reply 59
Great stuff, thanks.

I've been playing with this and you are right.  There are a few changes that eroded our city defenses.  We fixed an issue where city defenders would stack up from prior improvements (if you were city level 3 you used to get level 1, 2 and 3 defenders in your city).  Ive also applied a 25% attack and defense bonus when you are in your own lands.  As is Im gettign slaughtered trying to rush a city with a single low level sovereign, but I will get it to you guys for feedback and testing.

 

 

Great stuff, Indeed.  If they are also using the better weapons/armour you've researched, that will only add to the balance of the tech - I'd research more warwafe techs if the city militia would use them.

Reply #62 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Derek, reply 59

...

As is Im gettign slaughtered trying to rush a city with a single low level sovereign, but I will get it to you guys for feedback and testing.

 

:drool:  I like. :thumbsup:

Watch this...now Fortresses will be 'overpowered' and all cities build will level in that direction. XD

 

Reply #63 from Elemental Forums Top

Cool, this sounds positive.

Don't make me build troops, mister. I will queue spear-men so fast your head will spin. XO

If lone sovs can't trash cities and you can tackle the issue of warfare techs obsoleting previous ones, I might just shut up about being able to solo the game/having to build troops. Though, monsters might still need some anti-hero love...

Reply #64 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Derek, reply 59
Great stuff, thanks.

I've been playing with this and you are right.  There are a few changes that eroded our city defenses.  We fixed an issue where city defenders would stack up from prior improvements (if you were city level 3 you used to get level 1, 2 and 3 defenders in your city).  Ive also applied a 25% attack and defense bonus when you are in your own lands.  As is Im gettign slaughtered trying to rush a city with a single low level sovereign, but I will get it to you guys for feedback and testing.

 

Sweet!

Reply #65 from Elemental Forums Top

May want to be careful with boosting cities too much.  It will power up the Master scout trait, enabling you to randomly settle cities with strong auto-defences.

Reply #66 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting MiamiBigAL, reply 66
May want to be careful with boosting cities too much.  It will power up the Master scout trait, enabling you to randomly settle cities with strong auto-defences.

Very good point. Once troops are actually a buildable strategy, thought should be taken such that no specifc troop type is spammable and abusable at the same time. It should take a mix of types for an army to be successful.

Quoting MiamiBigAL, reply 66
May want to be careful with boosting cities too much.  It will power up the Master scout trait, enabling you to randomly settle cities with strong auto-defences.

Very good point. Wouldn't want that Master Scout ability to become even more broken.

Reply #67 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Derek, reply 59
Great stuff, thanks.

I've been playing with this and you are right.  There are a few changes that eroded our city defenses.  We fixed an issue where city defenders would stack up from prior improvements (if you were city level 3 you used to get level 1, 2 and 3 defenders in your city).  Ive also applied a 25% attack and defense bonus when you are in your own lands.  As is Im gettign slaughtered trying to rush a city with a single low level sovereign, but I will get it to you guys for feedback and testing.

 

 

just make sure to co-ordinate with the boss on the Monster AI.  What you do to city defense may affect the degree to which he needs to tweak monster behavior.  A city (no matter the size) destroyed because a pissed off dragon wanders through looking for blood is a credible scenario.   A Level 2 settlement dissappearing off the face of the earth due to a pack of wolves, a couple bandits, or a bear seems a bit of a streach (village maybe...). 

If it was me doing the design I would stage city vulnurability by level.

villages are vulnurable... no issue with that... anything should be able to take one out.

Level 2 cities should be able to resist weak threats without garrison or intervention

Level 3 cities should be ok with Medium threats

and so on....

all cities no matter the size should be obliterated by any threats in the Deadly to Epic range... I consider those threats to be equivilent to a natural disaster and the the city credibly should be leveled.