Garisson your cities and castles?

[mcederholm]

Hi

I have searched the forums for the best way to defend your strategic castles and cities, but haven't found much.

As far as I know, lots of archer troops is good, but what is the best way to defend your cities and castles?

What I want is to have as few units as possible in the castles/cities so that my full stack armies can spend their time conquering new provinces, but I want my strategic border provinces to be guarded as best as possible so that it can defend properly or at least put up a very good fight that will decimate the attacker enough so that I can more easily re-take the city...

any thoughts?

thank you for everything on this forum!

//Matthew

[econ21]

Good question and welcome to the Org!

I've found it hard to have a "just adequate" garrison. Whatever is big enough starts to look like a proper field army. So I've started gravitating towards just a token garrison with a field army stationed within a day's reach to rush to their aid. Ideally, one army can cover 2-3 settlements. Obviously, you can come unstuck if a spy opens the gates...

When thinking about garrisons, I tend to prioritise swords - I need something strong to hold the walls. For the gates, I am less sure - it seems more like a matter of attrition. Both swords and spears will lose men to AI cavalry and swords. Plus the AI is pretty smart at blasting at least 3-4 holes in the wall, which brings me back to my original point - 3-4 spears, plus swords, plus archers, plus backup to cope with the attrition = close to one of my field armies.

[zverzver]

This is too big of a question as there are so many strategic issues to take into account. If you give a more detailed account of your situation I may have some thoughts for you. Who are you playing, what is the situation with your neighbours, how is your economy, what cities you need to protect, what turn is it and so on.

Sorry for no usefull info.

[mcederholm]

My thoughts with the question was to get some general advice regarding defending castles/cities.
When I played france, I didn't use archers at all, but now playing the Byzantine, I have a lot of trebizond archers around.

But as econ21 says, when you're up to 3-4 swords, spears and archers, your above a half stack, and suddenly, it's more of an army than a garisson...

I've heard though that even peasant archers are valuable when defending a castle.
Is militia any good (except for italian militia that I know is good) for defense? Or should one use better troops?

//Matthew

[sapi]

The ideal garrison would be professional troops (hybrid units like byz guard archers are perfect as they can beat most units in melee) supported by a general's cavalry unit, but it's hard to get them and as you said, it quickly becomes something that would be more useful as a standing army....

[econ21]

I use militia in cities because it is free upkeep, but I've virtually never beat off an AI assault with it. Typically the AI has dismounted feudal knights or other swords that tear through militia. I also find that, without a general, low grade men such as militia tend to break eventually during attritional conflict (VH difficulty).

Archers are ok on the principle of making your enemy suffer from the assault - I target the nasty units to thin them out in preparation for when I come back for vengeance. I still tend to lose more men than the AI, but to honest, I don't mourn militia whereas the AI will feel the loss of its spearhead units.

[sapi]

econ, if you position your militia in schiltrom formation near the gate, but with enough room to let the ai in (i'm presuming you're using spear militia), they will fight and die to the last man.

Since the AI likes breaking down your walls, wait until one of the attacking forces is repulsed and send your general outside the breach and charging into the back of the enemy attacking through the gatehouse and/or another breach.

On vh difficulty they'll break almost instantly.

[vitch]

I like to fill up the militia spots and an archer unit but always have a spy in my own cities too. Your own spies can detect and kill enemy spies and hopefully avoid the open gates scenario. The AI prefers to seige than attack straight away if the gates are closed so you usually have time to redirect reinforcements to your beseiged city.

During the AI turns you may spot enemy spies that you don't get notified about (accompanied by the heartbeat sound effect). So if you see/hear that get one of your own spies in there quick.

[KARTLOS]

I use militia in cities because it is free upkeep, but I've virtually never beat off an AI assault with it. Typically the AI has dismounted feudal knights or other swords that tear through militia. I also find that, without a general, low grade men such as militia tend to break eventually during attritional conflict (VH difficulty).

Archers are ok on the principle of making your enemy suffer from the assault - I target the nasty units to thin them out in preparation for when I come back for vengeance. I still tend to lose more men than the AI, but to honest, I don't mourn militia whereas the AI will feel the loss of its spearhead units.

i find milita fine for defending - it is best to be fighting in a plughole situation such as your broken gate or a breach in the walls.

i agree about the risk of them breaking due to low morale - a general helps for this but so does having 3 or 4 units fighting in the same tight spot.

[KARTLOS]

My thoughts with the question was to get some general advice regarding defending castles/cities.
When I played france, I didn't use archers at all, but now playing the Byzantine, I have a lot of trebizond archers around.

But as econ21 says, when you're up to 3-4 swords, spears and archers, your above a half stack, and suddenly, it's more of an army than a garisson...

I've heard though that even peasant archers are valuable when defending a castle.
Is militia any good (except for italian militia that I know is good) for defense? Or should one use better troops?

//Matthew

militia troops are fine, often they are equally as good as equivelent proffessional troops so i wouldnt worry about using them, particularly in castles.

my suggested garrisoning force would be a mix of archers and spearmen, 4 of each can withstand a much larger army. having a unit of light cav is useful for harrassing ladder units and clearing up the routing enemy. the cheapest units such as slav levies, town milita and peasants do have some value at seiges as well as they are adequate for defending walls as the defender seems to get massive wall defence bonuses.

often i find the enemy have a fair number of cavalry at seiges. they then often break your door in with a ram. plug the gap with your spearmen, the cav then slowly advance onto the spear points and shit loads will die. often their general dies like this and then the rest of the troops will break. if you manage to position your cav outside the walls you can create a situation were the enemy fighting in your doorway rout and then run straight into your cav.

another factor to bear in mind is that if you are at peace or in alliance with your neighbours, having a well garrisoned (near to full stack) settlement by the border will put them off breaking the agreement to the point that it will never happen - the ai only tends to seriously attack winnable targets. thus it is better to garrison border settlements with more troops than inland ones.

[KARTLOS]

My thoughts with the question was to get some general advice regarding defending castles/cities.
When I played france, I didn't use archers at all, but now playing the Byzantine, I have a lot of trebizond archers around.

But as econ21 says, when you're up to 3-4 swords, spears and archers, your above a half stack, and suddenly, it's more of an army than a garisson...

I've heard though that even peasant archers are valuable when defending a castle.
Is militia any good (except for italian militia that I know is good) for defense? Or should one use better troops?

//Matthew

it goes without saying that any city should have at least its full implement of free upkeep milita troops. (obviously they provide a public order bonus as well)

[Moah]

Of course as Scotland you get Pike Militia and Heavy Pike Militia as free upkeep in cities - they can really hold a breach! Vastly superior to spears.

Watch out for enemy archers though.

And I haven't tried them on Castle walls yet so I don't know how effective they are against ladders and siege towers. The AI keeps abandoning sieges against me so I haven't tested them as much as I'd like. I also find it hard to curb my natural instinct of "Relief army! Attack the rear!" to drive them off.

[dismal]

I would first differentiate between "internal" and "border" cities.

An internal (i.e. one that has no border with another faction) city tends to face about zero chance of being attacked. These also tend to be mostly converted and have minimal unrest issues. I usually garrison these with no more than free militia units - about 50/50 spear militia and some sort of ranged milita unit. Though it harldy matters.

Border cities I tend to have garrisoned with professional armies. Generally, with whatever army recently took them. Usually, when I take a city I leave the army there while I start building churches, and maybe a defensive spy. After a couple turns, I'll start making militia so I can move my professional army on to the next target. I might have to leave as much as half a stack behind for a while to keep order until things settle down, but eventually those border cities become internal cities if I keep moving forward. Castles can be drawn down much more quickly, and generally captured castles are quickly put to work retraining/replacing troops that are lost or need to be left behind for garrison/order issues.

There is a bit of an art to when it is time to "de-militarize" a city. I might be more or less aggressive about it depending on how much I need the troops elsewhere. I suspect this is where I am not as aggessive as the hardcore rushers, who would just keep pushing forward leaving as small a garrison as possible even in their just conquered cities. The phrase "the best defense is a good offense" applies quite well to TW games.

With the patch's increased naval invasions, the AI has a jones for certain cities that it will keep trying for over and over. These cities require a little more garrison, but I find that even 8 or 9 units of mixed archer/spear militia are usually up to the task of defending walls.

I also am quite methodical about building watchtowers so I get plenty of warning about potential attacks. With the new multi-unit training queues, you can grow a garrison very significantly within a couple turns if you need to.

[Foz]

Several people have suggested keeping minimal garrisons and instead keeping larger armies nearby to aid against sieges. This is a pretty good idea from what I've seen, but I have a somewhat different take on it. Primarily, I use some cavalry for this purpose, freeing up the bulk of my forces to continue the offensive. They have the best movement on the campaign map, and so represent the best chance of covering multiple provinces at once. Likewise they enter battle in great position to flank the enemy when alleviating a siege, and with greater speed they can influence the engagement at a much earlier time than most other units could conceivably do so. It's a similar tactic to keeping cavalry by the side door(s) of a settlement when defending so they can go right out in the field and wreak havoc on the enemy... except it spreads the same cavalry units across multiple settlements, and therefore should be more efficient. Fighting on multiple fronts is an immensely useful position to force upon the enemy when he sieges you, and cavalry (whether in the city garrison or coming to the rescue) seem to be the best way to get the job done.

[Graphic]

When I have the means I like to set up a zone of settlements for a good stack of units to defend. They'll stand in a forest or sit in a fort within 1 turns walking distance of 2 or more settlements ready to meet the challenge. The settlements this stack will defend will only have enough town militia to not revolt.

[Ars Moriendi]

My border cities are garrisoned by whatever army took them, until the unrest settles, it's time to move forward and I had time to build a permanent garrison. When expanding, I usually intercept enemy stacks in the field, so getting besieged it's not usually an issue. Therefore I only use free militias up to the max number allowed, half spears + half crossbows.

Defense tactics : park the crossbows on the walls near the gate and use the spears to create a plug on the main street - not right at the gate, but not too far either. Crossbowmen are much more effective when firing inwards - their bolts have flat trajectories, not the high arc - so if the spears hold long enough, the enemy will form a huge blob of troops right between the plug and the gate, creating a perfect target. I lost the few battles I fought this way, against vastly superior force, but caused massive casualties each time : 200~300 kills for each crossbow unit that was still on the walls after the enemy broke through. Having a morale boosting device (or a general) behind the spears helps a lot.

Castles : as others have suggested, the missile/melee hybrids are best. I usually have between 3 and 6 of them, depending on the risk rating of the region.

[Askthepizzaguy]

My border cities are garrisoned by whatever army took them, until the unrest settles, it's time to move forward and I had time to build a permanent garrison. When expanding, I usually intercept enemy stacks in the field, so getting besieged it's not usually an issue. Therefore I only use free militias up to the max number allowed, half spears + half crossbows.

I differ, respectfully, with this strategy. (lol, as if anyone cared for my opinion)

I just hate using good offensive troops like heavy cavalry and heavy infantry as garrison forces. These men aren't babysitters, they are brave and bloodthirsty shock troops! I move them forward as soon as they are done pillaging, and I reinforce my new territory with already-prepared militia units that I sent towards the city before I captured it. If I bother garrisoning the new city at all.

Different playing styles, to be sure. It isn't as though one method is more right than the other. But I personally despise using my main imperial forces as policemen. Slightly reminiscent of certain elite fighting units policing the streets of Baghdad... what a waste of manpower and firepower. It is expensive too, and it leaves your best troops vulnerable inside city walls where they can be trapped like... well, the army you just defeated in order to claim the city.

Just a difference of opinion. Go with whichever method suits your playing style!

[Ars Moriendi]

Well, the professionals don't get too much garrison duty : just enough to recover, retrain and have some townsmen part-time soldiers replacing them as "police force". Most of the time I send them out rather soon, to take position on bridges, mountain passes or forest ambushes, or just head straight to the next target.

EDIT : I don't think I ever fought a battle with my main field army trapped inside a city. I did however got trapped inside a fort, and it wasn't pretty.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Is anyone actually stupid enough to use forts as defensive structures? After their first bad experience, that is? Building a fort is the same as digging a grave for whatever foolish army happens to occupy it. Once it happens to you one time, you never let it happen again!

Forts have exactly two functions: making trading posts for merchants and for being roadblocks for any army foolish enough to not carry artillery.
(of course, armies foolish enough to carry artillery move too slowly for my taste... so they are foolish either way, if they are foolish enough to face me!)

I still can't believe how ridiculously useless forts are as defensive structures in this game. Does anyone use them as such?

[Valdincan]

There's no real "perfect" garrison, but I generally go with a mix of spear militia, archers and light cavalry.

Spear militia are cheap (thus can be built in large quantities), and can fill any gaps made in the defenses. The enemy will have a hard time getting through a small opening when its blocked by hundreds of spears.

I prefer archers over crossbow-men due to the flaming arrows option. This damaged moral, and will make fighting off charges easier.

I use light cavalry to sally forth and destroy siege equipment.

Of course, this only works if you are commanding the battle yourself.

[Jasper The Builder]

Ill keep it simple

An important city to me always has to be defended by a castle near by, I usually keep a few units in my cities around 3 or so, Not many as too many becames costly. In my Castles i have about 8 units, Then when an enemy is barring close to my city i can start to build on that, To meet my demands for whatever force is coming my way, Its crucial that my watchtowers are always in working order, Keep a spy near by, They are like fenians sometimes the enemy, creep up and wack ya