Arakha wrote:
+1 Militia per borough ? So I need to go through 10-15+ militia + garrisonned units + reinforcements to take a single city ?



Really ? At that point, there's not even a point to go for military victories, you won't be able to take any city from a player ever and you will have an incredibly hard time against an AI.

Really? I have, so far, found militia to be so insignificant that there could be over twenty of them and that would barely make any difference.



That's why I suggested that their stats should scale up with Fortification level. They could be a threat with higher Fortification, but would go back to their uselessness after a siege.



Though, judging from the replies, it seems my experiences might have been atypical.

The siege mechanic really does need improvements. All militia should level up and get improved gear automatically when new era starts. Right now they become quite irrelevant in later eras.

Hey guys (third time i start this reply to post it... haha)



First of all i agree that at the moment cities are easy to take.



I DID run through the AI having troops in cities in some games, but it's not that common.



Now while i'm ok with making the cities stronger in some way, i also think that a technology should exist in some tier to help you salt the cities more rapidly (to give a sort of balance).

It could give you a faster gain of control, cancel the period of rebellion, many are the possibilities...



I'm not fan of adding many militia units to a city, i'd rather make them stronger along the evolution of the city. (battlefields are limited in size, and more units results in even longer battles for those of us who play each tactical round)

So here are some ideas (as simple as possible to apply) that coincide with somes i read, and that came up to me:



- Units placed on city tiles could receive a multiplied bonus given by the type of terrain and its elevation. The level of the city tile (borough or center) could add an additional bonus.



- At the moment, Militia units only gain XP through defending the city and reinforcements. Why not simply make them benefit from the "Stronghold architecture" building (+0.5xp per turn) and/or the XP bonus on units that gives a hero (that will provide you with a decision to make in your hero's evolution as a governor). It would make them better defenders.



- As cities expand and get bigger, they should be harder to conquer, sounds logical. I agree that each borough and opulation: should add a bonus to the fortification score (i won't throw random bonus numbers as i didn't do any type of calculation). And of course, leveling the center or a borough should reward you with extra fortification points.



- As a simple solution to give a sense and interest to siege, i thought that the fortification score of the city could be applied as a percentage malus to the besiegers' attack stat.

For instance:

Capital cities have 150 fortification points at start, and other cities have 100 points.

When besieging and depending on your force, you lower "X" points of fortification each turn.

Attacking directly without lowering the fortification would result in your troops having 0 in attack(... and a suicide), as long as the fortification points are > 100.

A city with 50 fortification points would lower the besieger's attack by 50%

" 25 fortification points " by 25%, and so on...

That simple system would give stronger/bigger cities more chance/time to resist a siege, and weaker/smaller cities to avoid a direct rush from the attacker.



I'd also like to add that since we talk about attack and defense, i feel that the game misses a notification when troops wander under your sight.

It's easy to check the surroundings of a small empire but as you get bigger it takes more time to check your borders.

Plus that would give an added sense to building towers, and give the possibility to attackers to plunder them and reduce the sight of the attacked empire.

As many people have said before, a possible solution to this dilemma could be the ability to set up traps. Maybe these could be just tiles on the map that do maybe, damage over time to enemy armies? Or some sort of bonus ability equip-able on militia that allowed them to cause damage over time while they still had the defensive bonus. There are so many possibilities that I think, city defense and siege could easily have enough possible content for an addon.

Autocthon wrote:
Generally speaking attacking a city without taking out its fortification should be tantamount to suicide unless you have a huge offensive advantage. Make it that way, keep it that way. Blitzing should be a viable strategy for border towns and early game, where full sieges should be the primary strategy for established towns and late game.

Yes, city assault without sieging should be possible only at high cost for the attacker. It could be something absract, like automatic damage to the whole army for example, or something more specific, like the 'boiled oil' suggestion I made in a post above.



Making city assault more bloody for the attacker, I think it is the way to go.

Autocthon wrote:
Generally speaking attacking a city without taking out its fortification should be tantamount to suicide unless you have a huge offensive advantage. Make it that way, keep it that way. Blitzing should be a viable strategy for border towns and early game, where full sieges should be the primary strategy for established towns and late game.

This is something I strongly agree with.



Aside from very small town and/or an extremely overwhelming army, assaulting a city without sieging it first should be really, really bad.

Propbuddha wrote:
Having a defensive force doesn't necessarily mean sitting in you city waiting to get attacked. You can go and attack them in the field before they get near your city. Being within 4 hexes of the city will allow you to enter as reinforcements.



If an army that can take your city without using siege reaches your gates, you've failed to properly secure your territory. Maybe your armies are too weak, maybe you've over expanded, maybe you don't have vision on the map. Whatever the case is it's a weakness that your opponent has exploited.

Yes. Bad stretegy is bad.



But given the option between a primary defensive force + potentially multiple backup armies and just the backups I'll ALWAYS take the former option. And the former options should always be more rewarding to a player.



Let's face it, there's not much reason for your armies to stay within quick range of your cities if you're going for a military victory, you want them out in the field taking out your opponent's cities. Bad players don't keep backup, but it's not always possible to always have a moving force in place. I'm personally of the opinion that a garrisoned force plus enough mobile force to fully load your reinforcements is the way to go, and honestly it should have the edge in terms of economic power.



Leaving holes in defense is bad tho. Just bad.

Autocthon wrote:
A standing army should serve that role, and it should be rewarding to build and maintain. As it stands militia are paper and a standing army isn't very attractive because it's "not doing anything" (unless you're at that very moment playing defense).

Having a defensive force doesn't necessarily mean sitting in you city waiting to get attacked. You can go and attack them in the field before they get near your city. Being within 4 hexes of the city will allow you to enter as reinforcements.



If an army that can take your city without using siege reaches your gates, you've failed to properly secure your territory. Maybe your armies are too weak, maybe you've over expanded, maybe you don't have vision on the map. Whatever the case is it's a weakness that your opponent has exploited.

Arakha wrote:
But again, if the AI and players leave 3-4 units + militia in their border cities, the cities are hard to capture thanks to the fortification... So I guess we've gone full circle on this discussion...

Depends on how you define hard. If you define it as "time consuming" yah it can take a while (bring like 3+ armies to take on the city). But the actual battle itself is 4 militia harder than a "normal" battle once you've invested that time.



Generally speaking attacking a city without taking out its fortification should be tantamount to suicide unless you have a huge offensive advantage. Make it that way, keep it that way. Blitzing should be a viable strategy for border towns and early game, where full sieges should be the primary strategy for established towns and late game.



Which goes back to my original points.



Militia should be strong enough to add some resistance when the enemy attacks, but it should not be the primary defense of your cities. A standing army should serve that role, and it should be rewarding to build and maintain. As it stands militia are paper and a standing army isn't very attractive because it's "not doing anything" (unless you're at that very moment playing defense).

Autocthon wrote:
. But then again taking a city SHOULD be hard. It's all about striking the right balance.

But again, if the AI and players leave 3-4 units + militia in their border cities, the cities are hard to capture thanks to the fortification... So I guess we've gone full circle on this discussion...



In my opinion (and apprently is how the game currently work), leaving cities undefended is a big mistake and SHOULD be a big mistake. "Making units" doesn't have to be equal to "creating an offensive force" and going to war in the opposite side of the map should be a decision that you have to think about before moving the majority of your troops away from your territory.

Arakha wrote:
+1 Militia per borough ? So I need to go through 10-15+ militia + garrisonned units + reinforcements to take a single city ?



Really ? At that point, there's not even a point to go for military victories, you won't be able to take any city from a player ever and you will have an incredibly hard time against an AI.

Militia are paper as-is. Just saying it was realistic.



I personally think army caps overall are a little on the low end. But then again taking a city SHOULD be hard. It's all about striking the right balance.



Also 30 pop cities are... Ouch. That's a very long game.



Anyway. In a world where militia was 2 + 2 from Tech + Burroughs with auto-base gear (Iron, Dust) you're looking at a good sized militia of really weak units plus whatever armies are around. Take militia off the offensive reinforcements table and your attacking army is going to be on par with the defending armies trying to get rid of them. Bring enough firepower and you'll cut through them eventually.



All the victory conditions are WAY too easy/insular as-is. Let's get creative, and let';s start with military/expansion victory. After that make Science/Diplomacy/Trade just as hard to accomplish. Then tune wonder. But huge discussion for another thread. And I'm rambling now.

Hmm.. yeah not sure increasing militia number is a good way to go, the siege battle are already enough quite crowded and not easy to manage/read.

I think most people around here agrees that cities are falling way too quick, too easily and too suddenly in Endless Legend.



The current system is designed in such a way that a player or AI would need to keep garrisoned troops to be able to defend their lands. Such a system will never work as intended: if a player spends resources building an army, it would be a waste to just leave it idling in a garrison "just in case". Once you have an army, it's much more profitable and effective to go on the offensive with it, or at least use it to explore ruins, pacify villages and do quests.



A proper solution to the current problem requires to take in consideration a few things, I believe:

• Cities should not fall suddenly. Players or AIs should have at least a few turns to react. In other words, sieges should be mandatory (either hardly enforced, or balanced in such a way that attacking a city without sieging it first would be a bad, bad idea);
• Bigger, more developed cities should be harder to take, even disregarding the already present Fortification improvements.
  
  

With that in mind, I propose the following changes:



I. Base number of Militias should be increased by +1.

II. Each District level up or City Center level up should add +1 Militia.

III. Each new era should add +1 Militia.

IV. All Militia stats should scale up with Fortification level. Having high fortification should make Militias truly dangerous when defending (and only when defending).

V. Pacified villages should provide one of their units when defending against attacks on your city.

VI. Each Population should give +10 Maximum Fortification, and each era should give +25 Maximum Fortification.

VII. Siege speed should be scaled down to about 66% of the current speed.



In other words, this would mean that directly attacking a city without sieging it first would be a bad idea unless it's a very small city. This would give time for the defender to call back his troops to aid and/or hire mercenaries nearby.

Autocthon wrote:
+1 Militia per burrough would actually be pretty realistic. But I already pitched my stuff, just thought I'd comment that "passive active" militia bonuses aren't horrible.

+1 Militia per borough ? So I need to go through 10-15+ militia + garrisonned units + reinforcements to take a single city ?



Really ? At that point, there's not even a point to go for military victories, you won't be able to take any city from a player ever and you will have an incredibly hard time against an AI.

EcthelionHelm wrote:
I do agree that city defenses could use a boost. I do hope your suggestions are an OR rather than an AND though - I would like for conquering enemy cities to be possible!



I particularly like having a fortification increase on either each new era or each new district, and having a permanent minor faction garrisoned as a militia for each one minor faction village pacified in that region. Could go further by having the ability to raze enemy minor faction villages before invading - this would remove their extra minor faction 'militia'.



I don't think any passive militia gains (such as per district / per era) is a good idea, but one more tech that gives a militia (maybe added to the lackluster +20% defense tech?) would be nice.

+1 Militia per burrough would actually be pretty realistic. But I already pitched my stuff, just thought I'd comment that "passive active" militia bonuses aren't horrible.

EcthelionHelm wrote:
I do agree that city defenses could use a boost. I do hope your suggestions are an OR rather than an AND though - I would like for conquering enemy cities to be possible!



I particularly like having a fortification increase on either each new era or each new district, and having a permanent minor faction garrisoned as a militia for each one minor faction village pacified in that region. Could go further by having the ability to raze enemy minor faction villages before invading - this would remove their extra minor faction 'militia'.



I don't think any passive militia gains (such as per district / per era) is a good idea, but one more tech that gives a militia (maybe added to the lackluster +20% defense tech?) would be nice.

A big +1 to this idea, I love it.

Autocthon wrote:
That being said: Having a standing army in your garrisons should be a GOOD thing. It's not a huge drain on resources compared to an active army (active armies are too cheap tho) and it provides a significant defensive benefit. There's essentially no downside.



To make it more clear that you should be keeping a defensive force in your cities there are a couple worthwhile changes,



1) Increase cost per turn of roaming armies, and include a "tax" that is proportional to your total dust income. 3% Total income per turn per army would be a good starting point.

2) Completely remove garrisoned unit upkeep costs.



This makes large armies more efficient than smaller armies, and makes a standing army downside-free with the potential to take it on the offensive. It also limits the effectiveness of having multiple active armies. This gives defensive empires an economic advantage over more aggressive empires, but aggressive empires will have greater total strength due to ability to effectively conquer cities and expand their empire. The only caveat I might place is that settler units should be exempt form the active army tax.

A big +1 to this suggestion.



Morever, in order to make a siege more mandatory, I think a good way to go would be to make assault more lethal for the agressor, like maybe for example :

add some 'boiled oil' effect when an ennemy unit attack a unit in a city tile on the battle map (take the graphic fx from the necrophages disease, with a big one-shot damage for example)

give a defense bonus against ranged attack for unit with fortification bonuses

give a ranged attack capacity for defensive unit in city tile

What do you think guys?

Propbuddha wrote:
Rather than making cities into impregnable fortresses, why not adjust the AI so it garrisons troops in cites? That's the problem isn't it? The AI doesn't recognize threats and defend itself.



Militia is not intended to be the universal answer to city defense. It was really only added to prevent tiny armies from running over cities. You need to Garrison some troops, or at least keep armies near the city, if you expect to stop a decent size army from rolling over your city

Unfortunately (I have the same opinion as you), it seems that this isn't what is talked about here. The real topic here is that it seems that it feels useless and inefficient to "waste" units as defense forces garrsionned in cities when they could be used elsewhere (like attacking other factions).



As I already said earlier, I don't understand that need to have cities which can defend themselves without any support, and I personnaly feel that it is really simplifying any sort of need for management of units and drawbacks to go at war elsewhere in the world.

Rather than making cities into impregnable fortresses, why not adjust the AI so it garrisons troops in cites? That's the problem isn't it? The AI doesn't recognize threats and defend itself.



Militia is not intended to be the universal answer to city defense. It was really only added to prevent tiny armies from running over cities. You need to Garrison some troops, or at least keep armies near the city, if you expect to stop a decent size army from rolling over your city

1) Make Militia more powerful.

2) Let militia gain experience.

3) Give militia better gear.



That being said: Having a standing army in your garrisons should be a GOOD thing. It's not a huge drain on resources compared to an active army (active armies are too cheap tho) and it provides a significant defensive benefit. There's essentially no downside.



To make it more clear that you should be keeping a defensive force in your cities there are a couple worthwhile changes,



1) Increase cost per turn of roaming armies, and include a "tax" that is proportional to your total dust income. 3% Total income per turn per army would be a good starting point.

2) Completely remove garrisoned unit upkeep costs.



This makes large armies more efficient than smaller armies, and makes a standing army downside-free with the potential to take it on the offensive. It also limits the effectiveness of having multiple active armies. This gives defensive empires an economic advantage over more aggressive empires, but aggressive empires will have greater total strength due to ability to effectively conquer cities and expand their empire. The only caveat I might place is that settler units should be exempt form the active army tax.