My City was positioned as far into the table as possible - within 6BW of 2 edges. He was able to deploy his Sp within 1BW of the long side of the City (2BW) while my line (of mostly Sp) was 3BW from the centre. My Sp needed to traverse approx. 8 BW in order to even start to cause him trouble - that's 4 moves which could, in theory, be 8 close combats as long as at least 1 assaulting element is not Recoiled. He assaulted the City with 2 Sp (including his General) in his 1st move. His General caused a Draw so he was able to have another crack (with no possibility of being Destroyed as previously noted) in my bound. In his 2nd bound, he wrapped 2 flanking Sp around the short sides of the City. Only 3 could assault, but that meant he had one in reserve if any of the other 3 Recoiled, assuring a 4th assault in 2 moves. His 3rd move, bringing back previously Recoiled elements proved to be the winner. The 2nd element assaulting beat my Sp thus Destroying them & taking the City - 3 element equivalents lost & my spears still at least a move away.
Actually, we may have done the deployment wrong in that he chose the edge opposite the WW - that's if purple p10 "The Invader then selects... any edge that is not opposite WW" means what I think it means. In any event, I can't see it would have made a difference, as he'd only have chosen the other edge to deploy on, with the same parameters as above.
I think contacting a City is like contacting an element. You must make a combat contact. You are allowed only 3 contacts at a time. You cannot contact a city with 6 elements, so that if you lose one, you still have at least 3 in combat.
"(close combat) occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or at least partial front edge contact with a city, fort or camp."
So combat occurs when in at least partial front edge contact with city. Only three elements can contact/combat the city.
"A city, fort or camp can be in contact with the front edges of up to 3 assaulting elements. The defender fights each assaulting element separately in succession, in each combat counting others still in contact as a tactical factor. Combats cease when the defender is destroyed or all assaulting elements have fought. "
Three in contact: First combat has 2 supports. If tie, then second combat has 2 supports, or if attacker loses, only 1 support. If a second tie, then still 2 support, if only 1 prior tie, then 1 support, if two previous loses, then no support.
I assume the Fast and Solid aspect of the attacker/defender pair impacts the tie result. So a Solid defender will defeat a Fast attacker on a tie, and vice versa.
...Can anyone argue for a defender choosing a City or Fort?
I use a city from time to time. There are a few different reasons but here are a couple of reasons I like using them...
1. They can look really good - especially a well made or presented one. 2. They can be useful for closing off a flank. 3. You never know with arable that plough will do very much. 4. There are some really fun rules which sometimes can liven up a game. 5. They can look really good - oh I said that already...
Are they useful, possibly not. But I don’t use stands for competitiveness, but rather because I find the army interesting and enjoy the visual side of the hobby and different stands create variety. Cities can add something different and therefore occasionally are great to use.
Forts are probably more competitive but often, at least locally, aren’t always modelled that well. The exception being a beautiful Korean fortress scratch built by a local which looks first class. I’m sure I would like them more once I come up with some more interesting ideas for my own armies. Here are a few photos of the Korean fort.
Makes sense to me, too. Still doesn't make me want to have a City 'cos it seems like a no-win situation to me. Can anyone argue for a defender choosing a City or Fort?
Well, can anyone argue for an invader having an all Ax army like the Illyrians, Paionians, or Sardinians? That also seems like a no-win situation to me...if the defender has several Pk/Bd/Sp/Kn in their army.
If your army has at lest one Bd or Sp, and your opponent has none, then a City or Fort is a good option. A CF 4+4 has only 3 chances out of 36 of losing, and 9 chances of doubling, when assaulted by three CF 3 troops. (This is assuming that you are playing by the rules as written, with only 3 assaulters in front-edge contact)
I'm not particularly competetive (probably wise, given my success rate) but do feel that defending with a city or fort is almost like giving 2 elements of your 4 victory criterea to the enemy. I appreciate the "look of the thing" & do enjoy using underdog armies as a win with them somehow seems more satisfying. So, all in all, I probaly won't be using them. I was hoping that I was misreading the rules as I am wont to do on occasion.