How to deal with garrisoned units?

[micpap25]

Whenever I play domination, enemies just garrison a warrior and abuse the +10 power it gives their palace. Is there any way around this?

[gimmethegepgun]

Nope. You're just going to have to beat it to death through the garrison.

[The Yeen Queen]

Postat inițial de micpap25:

Whenever I play domination, enemies just garrison a warrior and abuse the +10 power it gives their palace. Is there any way around this?

How is this "abusing" anything? It's exactly as designed. Having a defensive garrison makes a city harder to conquer. Seems pretty realistic to me. If anything, the bonus should start at 10 and scale up based on the strength of the unit garrisoned.

[gimmethegepgun]

Postat inițial de The Dark Tyger:

If anything, the bonus should start at 10 and scale up based on the strength of the unit garrisoned.

No it shouldn't. Combat is based on the absolute difference between the strengths involved, not the proportion, so that getting larger as the game goes on would make it impossible to take cities.

Also the city center's strength is already based on the strongest unit you've made, even without a garrison. The garrison bonus is +10 if the unit garrisoned is the one that the city's strength is based on, and lower if it's something weaker.

[War Pig]

How are you going to hear the lamentations of the women if you don’t crush the enemy and see him driven before you? May I suggest the culture victory route for you?

[player]

Surround city and shoot arrows at it? Cities that are surrounded do not heal.

[gimmethegepgun]

Postat inițial de Scheneighnay:

Postat inițial de player:

Surround city and shoot arrows at it? Cities that are surrounded do not heal.

2 melee units on opposite sides of the city is enough to set a siege status.
Just every tile around the city needs to be in a zone of control.

Unless it's on a river, which it usually is, which may make it take 3.

[Dray Prescot]

Have you ever tried a Siege Tower when attacking a city?

[Twelvefield]

Catapult diplomacy.

[gimmethegepgun]

Postat inițial de Scheneighnay:

Postat inițial de Dray Prescot:

Have you ever tried a Siege Tower when attacking a city?

Aren't siege towers just for taking a city while leaving the walls in tact?

It's not for the purpose of leaving the walls intact (they'll always be destroyed when taking the city, even if they weren't damaged in the process). It's so that you can ignore them and swarm the city with melee units instead of needing to break down the walls first (and ignore the +2/+4/+6 from wall level).
Knights are terrifying at this.

[The Yeen Queen]

Postat inițial de gimmethegepgun:

Postat inițial de The Dark Tyger:

If anything, the bonus should start at 10 and scale up based on the strength of the unit garrisoned.

No it shouldn't. Combat is based on the absolute difference between the strengths involved, not the proportion, so that getting larger as the game goes on would make it impossible to take cities.

I'm not talking a huge difference. Just seems that, as it is, the city defences don't keep pace with the strength of siege units as tech advances.

[Twelvefield]

Why wouldn't this be the case? Since the invention of gunpowder and its use on the battlefield, wall defenses lose their cost-to-effectiveness ratio pretty quickly. It can take, weeks, months, or years to build walls only to have them come down in an instant with a well-placed bomb or petard. Without walls, there's no easy way to force the attacker to take a particular entryway to your city. Without knowing which way your attack is coming from, you are forced to spread your defenses.

[The Yeen Queen]

But more advanced tactics and weapons come along that can more effectively defend a city from invaders than walls would.

[Twelvefield]

Like what? Clausewitz was pre-nuclear. The most advanced weapons aren't city based.