Occupying cities

In Civ5 there are now three ways to proceed with captured cities: raze, annex and puppet. Why not add the possibility to occupy the city?
Occupying would not really add the city to the empire - there is no impact on research cost, social policy cost and so on. You get the gold from capturing and have the possibility to plunder great works and you have acces to ressources on the captured land but you don't get anything else from the city (e.g. gold, science or bonuses from captured wonders). In return, occupying does not cause warmonger penalties or liberation bonuses nor does it instantly create unhappiness like annexing, puppeting or razing - so you gain time to continue your war but you have to leave a unit as garrison in the city and the unhappiness is gradually increasing the longer the occupation endures (contrary to annexing, puppeting or razing where the unhappiness is decreasing over time). So you have to deal with your occupied cities sooner or later - it's not a long term solution.
The possibility to occupy a city should give you more options in war and following peace deals.

SaiH said:

In Civ5 there are now three ways to proceed with captured cities: raze, annex and puppet. Why not add the possibility to occupy the city?
Occupying would not really add the city to the empire - there is no impact on research cost, social policy cost and so on. You get the gold from capturing and have the possibility to plunder great works and you have acces to ressources on the captured land but you don't get anything else from the city (e.g. gold, science or bonuses from captured wonders). In return, occupying does not cause warmonger penalties or liberation bonuses nor does it instantly create unhappiness like annexing, puppeting or razing - so you gain time to continue your war but you have to leave a unit as garrison in the city and the unhappiness is gradually increasing the longer the occupation endures (contrary to annexing, puppeting or razing where the unhappiness is decreasing over time). So you have to deal with your occupied cities sooner or later - it's not a long term solution.
The possibility to occupy a city should give you more options in war and following peace deals.

Click to expand...

That sounds like it offers an interesting choice, and seems historical at the same time.

generally I concur. I think city occupation should bring with it a more likely chance of a city's population revolting, needing strong garrisons to hold an occupation.

One problem with CiV's approach to warfare is that captured cities are truly captured, and become part of your empire, when you first capture the city, with attendant warmonger penalties, science penalties, etc.

I would prefer an approach that centered on whether you took cities in a peace treaty, not the initial act of capture (which would, by the way, eliminate the silly warmonger penalty distinction between capturing cities and accepting uncaptured cities in a peace deal -- a truly unjustifiable distinction, IMO).

The way it would work is that capturing a city would result in the city being "occupied", giving you no no happiness or science penalties, but also no benefits from the city -- no luxuries or strategic resources (i.e., as if those tiles were pillaged), no science, no culture, no faith, no nothing -- essentially the city stays in resistance indefinitely (not just a number of turns equal to its reduced population) and you cannot raze, puppet or annex while the war is going on. To prevent player abuse (occupying all of a civ's cities and never doing a peace treaty), there would be a per-turn cost of occupation (perhaps some amount of gpt per unit of population in the occupied city).

There will always be a peace treaty ending the war, even if you occupy all of the defending civ's cities. This is in contrast to today's mechanic, where, once you take a civ's last city, it is automatically eliminated from the game, with no final peace treaty.

In the peace treaty, if you have occupied all cities, you could demand unconditional surrender, in which case you would get the option to annex/raze/puppet/liberate the occupied cities, as today, and the defeated civ would be eliminated from the game, as today. Or you could offer to take only some cities (plus some other goodies, like gold, gpt, some luxuries, etc.), leaving the defeated civ to live on as a hollow shell of its former self. Or you could choose to release all of the occupied cities in exchange for various goodies as your prize. Among the goodies might be a mandatory DOF, free RA, open borders, mandatory DOW of another civ that you are awt war with, etc.

In this approach, only when you accepted cities in your peace treaty and made your annex/puppet/raze/liberate choice would happiness requirements, warmonger penalties, science penalties, etc. apply and the resistance countdown would begin.

I think this is a bug, but when I capture or puppet AI cities they start producing negative culture. If this is not a bug then I wish the game would be updated to eliminate the negative culture or a option to turn off negative culture be added to the game. To me negative culture is ruins the game. I could see a penalty where a captured city produces less culture than its capable of but not negative culture!