I think model for now is good. But militia need to be scaled per era/per weapon,armor tech so they stay relevant till end of game. And ofc bonuses for defend should be much higher. Like there should be building to make whole city "on cliff" and add 2 ranged militia, or something. Then militia unit would count for half of normal unit and to wear them down you would HAVE to siege a city for a while. To kill militia easier. And then even 1 unit armies to just siege city would be great. They would have to chance to attack city, but they could hurt.

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.

Arakha wrote:
While some of ideas given are interesting, I just don't understand this mindset. Why is it "a waste" to build some units for the specific and only role of defending your cities ? I don't know, it seems completely normal and logical to me that cities without any armies would be expected to be "free" for the ennemy. I mean, I understand the problem of AI cities being completely free to take because the AI is bad at defending and bad at feeling when it is weak or not. But players ? What you just described to me is you are deliberately making the conscious choice of letting your cities free to take ? Why ?

Because leaving your cities free to take will almost always be the most efficient choice. You already built an army, you might as well use it. You might end up losing a city, but you'll take a lot more because you're the one taking the initiative.



This is an issue present in almost every game that you need an army to protect your cities. By the point you have built enough "defenses", you realise that what you have in your hands is an army that could conquer your neighbors. And if you take the initiative on the attack, they won't even be able to strike back at your defenseless cities.



Units that are idling are resources that are not being used. Just like you should use all your gold and all your strategic and luxury resources (or else, why are you getting them?), you also should use all your units.



I mean, of course, in the mentality of a player that is maximizing his efficiency. This isn't even necessarily how I play, I often end up "roleplaying" a bit.

Ellye wrote:
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.

While some of ideas given are interesting, I just don't understand this mindset. Why is it "a waste" to build some units for the specific and only role of defending your cities ? I don't know, it seems completely normal and logical to me that cities without any armies would be expected to be "free" for the ennemy. I mean, I understand the problem of AI cities being completely free to take because the AI is bad at defending and bad at feeling when it is weak or not. But players ? What you just described to me is you are deliberately making the conscious choice of letting your cities free to take ? Why ? Units garrisonned are really cheap to maintain compared to armies on the field, and it shouldn't hurt your economy so bad that you can't sustain it (and if it is, isn't it a sign that you overextended your empire so much that you aren't able to defend it anymore ?)



As I said in another thread, I feel that the only problem regarding cities is the ability of privateers and cultists to instantly destroy a city without any retaliation possible. But in the other situations, I'd say that you were lacking defenses and that it is your job to now retake the city before the enemy can make a benefit from it (or worse, raze it)