In the game, when taking a a city its pretty straight forward. Make a massive army, and one by one click the city with a melee unit and capture it. But in reality, archers and other military units simply defended from other forces, and cut of supplies entering the city. After maybe using siege units, the city would either be starved out or they would surrender.
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is taking a city in civ is kind of strange. It would be more fun IMO if melee and ranged units could provide cover for the siege units, aka stack siege units on them, and if you occupied a tile, it would completely remove any resource benefits from that tile to the city. That way, you could starve cities out very quickly, maybe making them surrender after a few citizens starve to death. It would add more strategy to the game. It would also be nice if when you did attack with melee and ranged units, that you wouldn't actually do damage to the city, but you would hurt any garrisoned units in the city. If there are none, then it would have a 5% chance to kill a citizen or something.
What do you think? Should cities be harder to take, thus adding more planning involved?
Anyways, what I'm trying to say is taking a city in civ is kind of strange. It would be more fun IMO if melee and ranged units could provide cover for the siege units, aka stack siege units on them, and if you occupied a tile, it would completely remove any resource benefits from that tile to the city. That way, you could starve cities out very quickly, maybe making them surrender after a few citizens starve to death. It would add more strategy to the game. It would also be nice if when you did attack with melee and ranged units, that you wouldn't actually do damage to the city, but you would hurt any garrisoned units in the city. If there are none, then it would have a 5% chance to kill a citizen or something.
What do you think? Should cities be harder to take, thus adding more planning involved?