Is defending in city worth it?

[aclyte]

Ok, i want to talk about sieges and city defences.

In AoW3 defending army have big advantage - walls with it's +1 range to ranged, huge defence bonus from ranged attacks and great mechanics where enemy should either break the gates, use ladders or flying / pass-through units.

As a result, in AoW3 when you defend city you actually FEEL defensive power of walls and if you are attacker you understand that it will not be very easy - you either have to use ladders (and make this troops vulnerable) or fight in gate chokepoints being shot from flanks.

In AoW4, even after 200+ hours i can't say that defending the city even worth it - siege projects not only removes all the defences you build in the city, but also creates advantages for attacking army (like catapults or cannons - you can just outshot defending army using them).

And purpose of defensive structures falls down to just +X to fortification (longer siege time) because almost in 100% of cases they would be destroyed by some siege project.
And i also see some imbalance here - you have to spend gold + build time for this structures but enemy need to invest just resources to destroy it.
As a result, in most cases it's just ineffective to build any defence structures in the city.

I see one possible fix for this - give defending forces on walls +1 to range of attacks (so it would be +2 with battlements). As a result - there will be point to stay on walls (even the broken ones) and it would be harder for attacking army to destroy it (even with siege machines).

Also, maybe, balance somehow range of siege machines so they could not outshoot defenders - now if attacking army build any siege machines standing behind the walls become just useless - you can't outrange siege engines and have to leave walls.

We have Trebuches in AoW3 with long range also, but it was balanced by +1 range to archers (so they actually can reach trebuches). Here even basic siege catapult outrange everything on defender side (except for the towers who can be destroyed by siege projects or your own catapults)

[Terrkas]

I wouldnt mind a slight rework, but projects are limited. And depending on which are applied, attacker or defender can have the advantage.

[Syrris]

Basic siege projects generally cost more than the equivalent defenses, so it's not a waste of resources to have them in place. Beyond that, the longer siege time is actually the main benefit: you have more of an opportunity to respond to the siege by bringing forces in from elsewhere to deal with the attacker. AoW3 didn't give you that at all.

[Ser Pounce]

Actually, defense is incredibly powerful right now because while the enemy armies are spending time besieging your city, you can pummel them with impunity with spells like Condemn army, Flash freeze, and Phantasmal ritual. As units won't heal in enemy territory without special abilities. the attacking army will usually be extremely weakened by the time the walls fall. The terraforming spells like Flash freeze are particularly overpowered as they will hit all armies in the same region, although you can't use them to help allies or vassals as they count as a hostile actions against them even if they are immune to any ill effects from them. Pall of Gloom even hits all armies in adjacent regions too and applies the attrition damage from Gloom terrain.

[utilityguy]

What Ser Pounce said.

For people who go all in on making the Fortification points of a city go all the way up, unprepared enemies will be spending so much time seiging the city that they're citing ducks. for enough time to allow your armies to go on away missions and comeback just in-time for battle.

The trick is figuring out how to justify all that build time.

[Kasmir]

Agreed that the time involved in the new siege mechanic is a huge improvement over AoW3 where raiders could destroy back line cities almost at will unless they all had prohibitively large garrisons.

[Midas]

I've literally never defended a city. If I have enough forces for a straight fight, I'll just attack them instead of suffering lost income and stability for several turns. If I don't have the forces to fight back, I'll just withdraw from the city and let them have it, then come back to recapture it later.

Sieges used to be one of my absolute favorite parts of AoW3, but AoW4 takes absolutely everything enjoyable about it and throws it away.

[aclyte]

Originally posted by Ser Pounce:

Actually, defense is incredibly powerful right now because while the enemy armies are spending time besieging your city, you can pummel them with impunity with spells like Condemn army, Flash freeze, and Phantasmal ritual. As units won't heal in enemy territory without special abilities. the attacking army will usually be extremely weakened by the time the walls fall. The terraforming spells like Flash freeze are particularly overpowered as they will hit all armies in the same region, although you can't use them to help allies or vassals as they count as a hostile actions against them even if they are immune to any ill effects from them. Pall of Gloom even hits all armies in adjacent regions too and applies the attrition damage from Gloom terrain.

Probably we are talking about different things.
I have no problems with fortification points and sieges as a mechanic - i think it's good improvment over AoW3 so you can't just capture city in 1 turn.

The problem is city BATTLE after siege is complete - for some reason defending army in siege battle have LESS protection than attackers because attackers have siege projects on their sides (like catapults) and defenders have nothing (because everything is destroyed by siege projects).
As a result, its better for the defending army to fight in the field in last turn of siege OR, as Midas said, just abandon city.

None of you wrote anything in defence of fighting inside the city walls and it's because there no actual reason for this - combat inside city walls is disadvantage but it should not be that way.

Imo, sieges should be reworked, for example:
1. lower amout of turns to finish the siege (maybe by 30-50%).
2. Make defensive structures and walls MUCH more important - for example give all units on walls +1 range and give towers to defenders who can shot without limits and deal additional damage to siege engines so you have limited amount of turns when they effective.

Again, problem is not in fortification mechanics (it's good), the problem is siege battles - it's very rare when defending army have any advantage over attackers (and, in most cases, defending army have disadvantages over attackers) but siege battles should not be like that.