>>6235901
Realistically, any city won't be easier than this (unless they didn't get an influx of refugees that warned them to throw up earth works lol). The only thing that would make a city easier is being able to blow down walls, but what if QM just increases the quantity of defending troops? Its all ifs, buts and maybes (and fun to guess at, pic rel)

>>6235914
Maybe suppress was the wrong word. I was just thinking that if the defending troops are trading shots with our ranged troops, then they are not concentrating fire on units that go through the breach. Meaning it becomes more viable

I do like the idea of a two pronged attack, it probably comes down to:

1. use cannon and infantry to attack westgate
for main assault, and make the eastern force visible so it thins defenses and makes the western assault more viable
1. hide the eastern force so the enemy concentrates on the western side (and then the eastern force can surprise attack and enter the city essentially unimpeded). Western side doesn't fully commit until sneak attack is successful
3. determine that this city has no value and continue travelling


Regarding the option to skip this city and move on, I've put some thoughts on the overall campaign map. I personally think we should take this city and the next city and then run as fast as we can to the finish line. It should just be field battles and foraging (with fast movement bonus) towards the end