rcoutme
Emperor
I would like to see the idea of siege warfare come into play in Civ4. The following might be a good place to start the discussions:
If a city is surrounded (each square around the city is occupied, or most are and those not occupied by enemies are also cut off) then the city can not send workers out beyond the enemy troops. The city has a limited food supply (already represented by the amount in the excess box). If a city runs out of food due to siege (i.e. enemies have prevented the folks from working the farms) then an advisor will pop up and say, "Sire, City X has been surrounded and is out of food. Should we allow them to surrender?" The answers could be 1. (Callous) "Tell them to fight to the last man, woman and child!" 2. (Humane) "Ok, they tried valiantly, let them go..."
If the first option is used then each unit would lose a hp (for the current combat system if 2-5 hp) unless it was down to minimum. The city would lose one population and the siege could continue. Doing this, however, would have serious repercussions. War Weariness would be able to affect all governments. It would just affect Democracy/Republic in more ways.
So, the current system gives WW pts for units in hostile terrain, enemies in friendly terrain, etc. These could be kept, but, for some government systems not all of these would cause WW. Specifically, units being redlined (reduced to 1 hp) would not cause WW in select gov'ts. Location of troops would only cause WW in Dem/Rep. Loss of cities would cause WW in all govts. WW would have lesser consequences early on for more militaristic governments (i.e. Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, etc.) similar to the differences in Rep/Dem where it takes a lot more pts before Rep hits 50% WW than for Dem. to hit that level.
WW would be caused by having a city lose population due to sieges. This would be a big hit (thus giving reasons for surrendering cities). Units that surrendered would not cause as much WW as those eliminated (maybe 1/2 the WW), giving further reason to surrender the city. Resistance in surrendered cities would be lesser than in similarly conquered cities (giving reason to want to hold out against the invaders).
In addition, I would like to see isolated cities (i.e. besieged) not be able to contribute to the general treasury and not be able to receive help (in the way of national treasury etc.). This was implemented in a game called "Reach for the Stars". The cities would be interdicted and therefore had to fend for themselves. This would create a more strategic feel for the combat system without causing much programming time or changes. It would prevent a player from selling off a bunch of improvements in a city just because he knows he can't hold it and adding the money to the national treasury.
Further, each city should have a certain amount of "treasury" each turn. If a city is isolated, then the amount it has is fixed, changeable only by the amount it would contribute. That would be the amount it could use to pop-rush, etc. That would also be the maximum that could be looted from it (thus eliminating the possibility of barbarian hordes taking half your treasury from a small city that had just been formed on the outskirts of your empire).
To summarize:
1. War Weariness should affect all governments, but at reduced levels in the "more favorable" type governments.
2. Seiges should be allowed to "force" cities into submission: giving a severe WW penalty if the citizens are allowed to starve by the owning player rather than surrendering.
3. Amount of national treasury should be fixed for each city each turn. Cities that become isolated can not contribute to treasury, nor receive from treasury until isolation is broken.
4. Isolation must be by enemy troops: borders, neutral troops or viable sea lanes break isolation.
5. Troops and cities would only ask to surrender after the food supply is gone.
Going along with this theme, a governor action could be "Do not allow the city to grow due to food increase". Thus you could keep a city's food level at maximum rather than add a citizen. A city in this state would only grow due to a manual population influx (i.e. adding a worker/settler or immigration if that is implemented).
If a city is surrounded (each square around the city is occupied, or most are and those not occupied by enemies are also cut off) then the city can not send workers out beyond the enemy troops. The city has a limited food supply (already represented by the amount in the excess box). If a city runs out of food due to siege (i.e. enemies have prevented the folks from working the farms) then an advisor will pop up and say, "Sire, City X has been surrounded and is out of food. Should we allow them to surrender?" The answers could be 1. (Callous) "Tell them to fight to the last man, woman and child!" 2. (Humane) "Ok, they tried valiantly, let them go..."
If the first option is used then each unit would lose a hp (for the current combat system if 2-5 hp) unless it was down to minimum. The city would lose one population and the siege could continue. Doing this, however, would have serious repercussions. War Weariness would be able to affect all governments. It would just affect Democracy/Republic in more ways.
So, the current system gives WW pts for units in hostile terrain, enemies in friendly terrain, etc. These could be kept, but, for some government systems not all of these would cause WW. Specifically, units being redlined (reduced to 1 hp) would not cause WW in select gov'ts. Location of troops would only cause WW in Dem/Rep. Loss of cities would cause WW in all govts. WW would have lesser consequences early on for more militaristic governments (i.e. Monarchy, Fascism, Communism, etc.) similar to the differences in Rep/Dem where it takes a lot more pts before Rep hits 50% WW than for Dem. to hit that level.
WW would be caused by having a city lose population due to sieges. This would be a big hit (thus giving reasons for surrendering cities). Units that surrendered would not cause as much WW as those eliminated (maybe 1/2 the WW), giving further reason to surrender the city. Resistance in surrendered cities would be lesser than in similarly conquered cities (giving reason to want to hold out against the invaders).
In addition, I would like to see isolated cities (i.e. besieged) not be able to contribute to the general treasury and not be able to receive help (in the way of national treasury etc.). This was implemented in a game called "Reach for the Stars". The cities would be interdicted and therefore had to fend for themselves. This would create a more strategic feel for the combat system without causing much programming time or changes. It would prevent a player from selling off a bunch of improvements in a city just because he knows he can't hold it and adding the money to the national treasury.
Further, each city should have a certain amount of "treasury" each turn. If a city is isolated, then the amount it has is fixed, changeable only by the amount it would contribute. That would be the amount it could use to pop-rush, etc. That would also be the maximum that could be looted from it (thus eliminating the possibility of barbarian hordes taking half your treasury from a small city that had just been formed on the outskirts of your empire).
To summarize:
1. War Weariness should affect all governments, but at reduced levels in the "more favorable" type governments.
2. Seiges should be allowed to "force" cities into submission: giving a severe WW penalty if the citizens are allowed to starve by the owning player rather than surrendering.
3. Amount of national treasury should be fixed for each city each turn. Cities that become isolated can not contribute to treasury, nor receive from treasury until isolation is broken.
4. Isolation must be by enemy troops: borders, neutral troops or viable sea lanes break isolation.
5. Troops and cities would only ask to surrender after the food supply is gone.
Going along with this theme, a governor action could be "Do not allow the city to grow due to food increase". Thus you could keep a city's food level at maximum rather than add a citizen. A city in this state would only grow due to a manual population influx (i.e. adding a worker/settler or immigration if that is implemented).
