How should be the "war" in Civ 4

What do you think? How should be a “war” in Civ4
I think if any Civ captures a city of an another Civ this will be not his city because in the reality when a nation captures a city it will be his city when the two or more nations sing a peace treaty and offers the captured city.
So the civ that has captured the city must sing peace and offer to give him the captured city in order to be his city

I understand your point but disagree with your conclusion. I think that the AI needs to come back with more suggestions when you make an offer (especially one of peace). They should be demanding those cities back or they keep fighting (if they think they can continue the fight). Conversely, they should be offering your cities back if they want you to stop fighting. All of this comes back to the thread on Diplomacy. The AI is not very good at it. If the AI deals with itself the way it deals with us, it is a wonder that in a game with 12 civs that all 11 AI are not constantly at war!

Wars between France and Germany routinely traded the Alsace-Lorraine region. It was not the peace negotiations that determined the control of the region, it was the military reality.

Similar to the above topic: I think that turning off the ability to use roads and RR in enemy territory is both admirable and good, however, I believe that there should be a 1-turn use of roads (not RR, though) for a player trying to take his city back. Obviously, the bug of having a city change hands turn after turn would have to be thought out and set. Basically, whoever controls the city should have use of the roads, but you should have to control the city for two turns in order to use the roads on the turn you lose the city.

How long the roads and rails around a newly-captured city remained usable to the enemy should depend on how that city's populace felt about the conquest. If they felt they were under a hostile occupation, they would surreptitiously aid their unsubdued countrymen whenever they could; if they felt they had been liberated from a bad government, they would be only to happy to join the fight against it!

Originally posted by Pariah
How long the roads and rails around a newly-captured city remained usable to the enemy should depend on how that city's populace felt about the conquest. If they felt they were under a hostile occupation, they would surreptitiously aid their unsubdued countrymen whenever they could; if they felt they had been liberated from a bad government, they would be only to happy to join the fight against it!

Click to expand...

This could be handled quite well by adjusting the cultural borders based on which civ has the most culture in a city. Currently, when you capture a city, the 8 tiles immediately around it become yours instantly, even if you have no culture there and the former owner had a ton. However, if those tiles remained property of the former owner until your own culture pushed them back, or at least became "unowned" for several turns until your culture grew, then counterattacks by the enemy, through what logically ought to be friendly territory to them, would not have the road/RR movement penalty. On the other hand, if you re-captured a city that used to be yours, the game would remember how much culture you had there, and your borders would instantly expand: the people in the surrounding rural areas would be happy to have you back in control.

Originally posted by Pariah
How long the roads and rails around a newly-captured city remained usable to the enemy should depend on how that city's populace felt about the conquest. If they felt they were under a hostile occupation, they would surreptitiously aid their unsubdued countrymen whenever they could; if they felt they had been liberated from a bad government, they would be only to happy to join the fight against it!

Click to expand...

That brings us to the problem of transfered animosity. If the AI whipped and drafted the population of a city, when it is captured, that unhappiness stays with the new owner.

I don't know if any of you have ever played Europa Universalis II, but I liked the way wars worked in that game (as far as capturing cities goes, anyway.)

How it worked was this: During a war, once you've defeated all of the enemy units surrounding the city, you would have to lay siege to it, which usually took around 9 months, but could be anywhere from 2 months to 2 years or more if the city is heavily fortified, and you only have the minimal number of troops. At a certain point, however, the defences would be breached, and you would be able to assault the city, and take it with your troops. You would lose a lot more troops this way, and even risk losing them, but take it much faster. The city produces nothing at all while it is under siege, and the attackers get a little bonus to their treasury after the first turn of siege for "looting." In Civ, this could be represented by a unit or units laying siege to a city, and it could be like a worker action: It takes 6 turns for a normal unit, 3 for an artillery unit, etc, and you could have say 2 artillery and 2 cavalry take it in 1 turn. Or, after it is half taken, you can assault it, which would use your unit to attack against a unit with say a defence of 2 for each age (up to 8 in the modern age) and as many hp as citizens. While it is under siege, the city would not produce anything for anybody.

Once the siege is over, it becomes occupied territory, which is still of no use to either side. The attackers can leave it empty, however it will then be vulnerable to attack, and any enemy unit can take it right away.

Once you decide to negotiate a peace treaty, you can ask for some of the cities that you occupy, plus techs, gold and whatever in return for the peace. You would rarely be able to get every occupied city out of a peace deal: Usually only half to 3/4, unless you occupy their entire territory, in which case you receive the option to annex their nation entirely.

Also, when you take over a city, A certain number of people should emigrate from it into the nearest surrounding cities of their former civ, depending on how each nation treats their citizens, government type, happiness, etc.

I could live with this system. I'm not so sure about the timing, but the siege and emigration effects make sense. Also, I would allow an occupied city to produce, but at 1/2 or 1/4 production. Germany got lots of production out of occupied territories, just had to "use the whip" and caused lots of unrest in the process.

Maybe it could be that Fascist and Despotic regimes can get 1/2 production from occupied cities, and maybe Fasciists (but not despots) could also have a higher chance of keeping city improvements? This would give that government type a bit more balance.

What did you mean by the Fascist regime "keeping city improvements?"

Well, the way it is now, most city improvements are destroyed when you take a city, and you only get to keep 1 or 2 of them if you're lucky. With this, Fascists would have a higher chance of keeping them (ie not destroying them.)

What I would like to see is ...
1. When a city is captured and kept
a. Only half of the improvements are destroyed OR
b. Improvements are damaged and cost half price to rebuild
2. When a city is captured and razed
a. Half of the value of the improvements are put into your treasury
(plunder)
b. All Non-Attacking units are captured
3. When a city defects and you accept
a. NONE of the improvements are destroyed
b. Only half of the military units are destroyed
c. Period of increased production for X turns after defection
(We love the King Day effect?)
4. When a city defects and you reject it
a. half of the population becomes workers for your civ
b. half of the military units become yours

The city improvements should be able to be quickly repaired, not need to rebuilt. Only after constant bombardment should the building be destroyed. Ie if an archer army attacks a city, sure it might kill the enemy soldiers, but it cannot destroy the factory with arrows.

Maybe the type of government, would automatically scuttle their own cities and leave nothing, or have it as an option in any battle.

Bilko said:

Well, the way it is now, most city improvements are destroyed when you take a city, and you only get to keep 1 or 2 of them if you're lucky. With this, Fascists would have a higher chance of keeping them (ie not destroying them.)

Click to expand...

Huh? Oh, you mean that all the culture-producing improvements are destroyed.

I think this is an interesting proposition.

I think that something that needs to be modelled is the benefits of sacking a city without taking it for yourself. Like the repeated times that Rome was sacked but the empire still stood.

Your idea seems very compatible with this.

Bilko said:

Maybe it could be that Fascist and Despotic regimes can get 1/2 production from occupied cities, and maybe Fasciists (but not despots) could also have a higher chance of keeping city improvements? This would give that government type a bit more balance.

Click to expand...

Why would fascist governments have a higher chance of keeping improvements? If anything I think the odds of there being stuff left would be LESS for them.

As far as using a EU2 style of diplomacy, I disagree. Diplomacy in that time was conducted according to "rules" of chivalry and such. There is no reason why "occupied" territories should be any different from "annexed" ones. You either have control of a region or you don't. A treaty doesn't change that.

They should be able to offer you money in exchange for sparring their city

When capturing cities, I've always thought I should the city should lose a percentage of its trade and productivity, and perhaps food. Over time, those 2 (3?) would go up to full abilities.
The people will most likely be unhappy being ruled by another government. This that could affect what percentage is lost and how long it takes to get to full abilities:
Say, for example, Rheims is captured. Was the city captured from the civ who built the city initially- from the English, as opposed to the French? How long did they (the English) hold the city?
What were the relations between the two parties before the war? Periods of war, interspersed by peace? Allies until one cancelled the alliance?

What social techs are owned by the civ that gained and lost the city? For example, if they share common Government types (like Democracy) you will suffer limited loss of production- or the attacker will suffer big production losses if one of the governments is in Facism. If you want to get real advanced, Religion could play a factor: if the civs discovered Religion independently, they would see themselves as being natural opponents. (Jihad/Crusades, anyone?) Humanitarianism and ethnic groups could also play a role, but I can't figure out how to translate them into game terms.