[DLL] (7-NS) Bombing cities beyond their HP inflicts War Weariness

[pineappledan]

Counterproposal to this:

[DLL] - (7-NS) Bombing cities beyond their HP has a chance to destroy Buildings

Proposal Bombing cities when the city is at 0 health will now have a chance to destroy buildings, with the % chance based on the damage output that would have been inflicted. Eg. If your ranged attack would have done -10 damage to the city, it has a 10% chance to destroy a random building. Some...

forums.civfanatics.com

The original proposal is to have attacks vs a city at 0 HP have a chance to destroy buildings. This would be a nightmare for modmods, custom civs, etc.

Proposal
Ranged Attacks/bombardments vs a city with 0 HP generates War Weariness for the city owner

• The amount of weariness is capped at the value of capturing the city. So, if you bombard the city and then capture it, you are limited to 2x the value of the war weariness of the city. This blocks potential abuse of just hammering a city endlessly to trigger rebellions etc.
• Weariness is generated at the same rate as if killing a unit with strength equivalent to the CS of the city. This will rack up fast, but cap fast too.

Original Rationale (reposted from @Xaviarlol )
There are limited ways to hurt another Civs economy, punish them or pressure them in to making peace, outside of taking cities directly. This will allow bombing civs in to submission without having to invade their cities.

WW Rationale:
This gives a potential lever for inflicting additional war weariness at the cost of extra time and attacks against an opponent for no damage.
This allows players opportunity to try to inflict more rebellions and revolts, and an opportunity for Huns etc. to use their powers more. Revolts etc are a fun mechanic, and it would be cool to see more of them
Does not create a complicated new ruleset or add more random elements.

 

[Stalker0]

If you have a city at 0 hp...then you should just take it, as in this example the most war weariness you can generate is equal to the capture of the city anyway. Now personally I don't like any of the "at 0 hp" proposals

 

[Xaviarlol]

If you have a city at 0 hp...then you should just take it, as in this example the most war weariness you can generate is equal to the capture of the city anyway. Now personally I don't like any of the "at 0 hp" proposals

I think it is both unrealistic and impractical to force a civ to occupy a city to generate war weariness and end a war.

Good counter-proposal, and I support it if people prefer this over destroying buildings AND causing war weariness.

 

[Rekk]

Counterproposal to this:

[DLL] - (7-NS) Bombing cities beyond their HP has a chance to destroy Buildings

Proposal Bombing cities when the city is at 0 health will now have a chance to destroy buildings, with the % chance based on the damage output that would have been inflicted. Eg. If your ranged attack would have done -10 damage to the city, it has a 10% chance to destroy a random building. Some...

forums.civfanatics.com

The original proposal is to have attacks vs a city at 0 HP have a chance to destroy buildings. This would be a nightmare for modmods, custom civs, etc.

Proposal
Ranged Attacks/bombardments vs a city with 0 HP generates War Weariness for the city owner

• The amount of weariness is capped at the value of capturing the city. So, if you bombard the city and then capture it, you are limited to 2x the value of the war weariness of the city. This blocks potential abuse of just hammering a city endlessly to trigger rebellions etc.
• Weariness is generated at the same rate as if dealing damage to a unit

Original Rationale (reposted from @Xaviarlol )
There are limited ways to hurt another Civs economy, punish them or pressure them in to making peace, outside of taking cities directly. This will allow bombing civs in to submission without having to invade their cities.

WW Rationale:
This gives a potential lever for inflicting additional war weariness at the cost of extra time and attacks against an opponent for no damage.
This allows players opportunity to try to inflict more rebellions and revolts, and an opportunity for Huns etc. to use their powers more. Revolts etc are a fun mechanic, and it would be cool to see more of them
Does not create a complicated new ruleset or add more random elements.

Also warmonger penalties?

 

[Anarcomu]

If you want to end a war with a favorable deal (capitulation in some cases), then razing is a good option, too.

 

[azum4roll]

What about war score?

 

[SerbianYugoThief]

If you have a city at 0 hp...then you should just take it, as in this example the most war weariness you can generate is equal to the capture of the city anyway. Now personally I don't like any of the "at 0 hp" proposals

But what if I don't want the city and I'm just trying to pressure the AI into folding?

 

[Tekamthi]

But what if I don't want the city and I'm just trying to pressure the AI into folding?

I also do this sometimes, I don't actually want the city but I want to have the option of taking it quickly if things go sideways etc. Would be interesting to maybe just be able to harass a city the way barbarians do and steal yields

 

[Anarcomu]

But what if I don't want the city and I'm just trying to pressure the AI into folding?

Raze it. It generate extra warscore whilst doing so, and the spawned Partisans can further bring yields (if relevant bonuses are taken) and warscore themselves.

 

[SerbianYugoThief]

Raze it. It generate extra warscore whilst doing so, and the spawned Partisans can further bring yields (if relevant bonuses are taken) and warscore themselves.

That still requires me taking it, though. I'd rather diversity in my options, especially if a new option means I don't eat a warmonger penalty

 

[CppMaster]

especially if a new option means I don't eat a warmonger penalty

You should get a warmonger penalty, though. You're bombing an already defeated city, afterall.

 

[Rekk]

But what if I don't want the city and I'm just trying to pressure the AI into folding?

You can pillage everything.

 

[Legen]

Units also prevent enemy citizens from working the tile the unit is on, as well as unguarded tiles (a.k.a. without an opposing unit in it) around the unit.

You can also pillage trade routes, and roads that would form a city connection.

 

[Rekk]

• Weariness is generated at the same rate as if dealing damage to a unit

War Weariness from killing units is equivalent to the "Power" (based off the combat strength and other values) of the unit.
War Weariness from pillaging tiles is based off the value of the tile.
War Weariness from capturing a city is based off of the value of that city.

Can you please expand on how your proposed application of war weariness is calculated?

 

[Rekk]

I want to reiterate that this proposal isn't specific enough.

 

[Stalker0]

I want to reiterate that this proposal isn't specific enough.

What is it missing? It lists the amount of war weariness generated and the maximum amount it can generate. Is it because it notes its the same as unit damage but doesn't show what the unit damage is?

That said, now that I think about it, do you actually "do damage" when the city is at 0 hp? Or does the attack come back as 0 damage? I honestly don't knwo

 

[Tekamthi]

That said, now that I think about it, do you actually "do damage" when the city is at 0 hp? Or does the attack come back as 0 damage?

Iirc units stop getting xp -- from this I've always assumed it was not a real combat

 

[pineappledan]

WW used to be generated just by dealing/receiving damage. Is that no longer the case?

What I planned to propose was the weariness calculation as if the city were a unit with the city strength calc.

If that’s no longer possible then it should just be based on the WW equivalent to killing a unit of equivalent power to the city’s strength on every attack. That should rack up quick, but also cap quick.

 

[azum4roll]

No, you don't inflict any war weariness when damaging units.

 

[pineappledan]

k. then option b.

Updating OP.